The Conservative Flock

Apparently, the widely successful documentary "March of the Penguins" has garnered some interesting appraisals: cultural conservatives. After all, who doesn't love a film that you can apply any number of conservative wet-dreams to that will appeal to moms and kids alike? Ahh yes. Those good old timey onservative family values, told through the [constructed] narrative of a film about penguins:

On the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com, an opponent of abortion wrote that the movie "verified the beauty of life and the rightness of protecting it."

At a conference for young Republicans, the editor of National Review urged participants to see the movie because it promoted monogamy. A widely circulated Christian magazine said it made "a strong case for intelligent design."

The movie is "March of the Penguins," and of all the reactions it has evoked, perhaps the most surprising is its appeal to conservatives. They are hardly its only audience; the film is the second highest grossing documentary of all time, behind "Fahrenheit 9/11."

But conservative groups have turned its stirring depiction of the mating ordeals of emperor penguins into an unexpected battle anthem in the culture wars.

"March of the Penguins," the conservative film critic and radio host Michael Medved said in an interview, is "the motion picture this summer that most passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child rearing."

Speaking of audiences who feel that movies ignore or belittle such themes, he added: "This is the first movie they've enjoyed since 'The Passion of the Christ.' This is 'The 'Passion of the Penguins.' "

But even the filmmakers aren't so sure about that. They are, after all, scientists and storytellers:

In part, the movie's appeal to conservatives may lie in its soft-pedaling of topics like evolution and global warming. The filmmakers say they did not consciously avoid those topics - indeed, they say they are strong believers in evolutionary theory - but they add that they wanted to create a film that would reach as many people as possible.

"It's obvious that global warming has an impact on the reproduction of the penguins," Luc Jaquet, the director, told National Geographic Online. "But much of public opinion appears insensitive to the dangers of global warming. We have to find other ways to communicate to people about it, not just lecture them."

In a subsequent interview for this article, he added, "My intention was to tell the story in the most simple and profound way and to leave it open to any reading."

There are several valid criticisms of the filmmakers for reconstructing the story of the survival of these penguins into a more applicable human story. Yet penguins also share certain norms that human society abides by, such as monogomy. It would be ridiculous, however, to build a society based on a reconstruction of a penguin movie. In fact, what we've got here is Conservatives injecting their moral perceptions into a movie that has reconstructed itself, admittedly by the filmmakers, away from factual documentary and into a more "accessible" form.

In fact, there's a lot of moral value that penguins do not share with conservatives. How many conservative Men could we assume would be willing to take total control of an unborn egg and nurture it, actually nurture it, not just talk about nurturing it, keep it protected, while the woman goes off to "work?" Not many. That gender role-sharing does not exist in the Conservative society.

That doesn't have much to do with either penguins or humans, really, now, does it?

Anyway. I haven't actually seen the film. Anybody? Thoughts? Is March of the Penguins the next Passion? Is it the Anti-Fahrenheit? Or is it, as I suspect, a film narrative experience warped to fit into the moralist interpretation of American Conservative cultural prescriptionists?

To Andrew Coffin, writing in the widely circulated Christian publication World Magazine, that is a winning argument for the theory that life is too complex to have arisen through random selection.

"That any one of these eggs survives is a remarkable feat - and, some might suppose, a strong case for intelligent design," he wrote. "It's sad that acknowledgment of a creator is absent in the examination of such strange and wonderful animals. But it's also a gap easily filled by family discussion after the film."

Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, told the young conservatives' gathering last month: "You have to check out 'March of the Penguins.' It is an amazing movie. And I have to say, penguins are the really ideal example of monogamy. These things - the dedication of these birds is just amazing."

Other religious conservatives have seized on the movie as a parable of steadfast faith. In Sidney, Ohio, Ben Hunt, a minister at the 153 House Churches Network, has coordinated trips to the local theater to see the film. (He describes the organization as a Christian denomination with nine churches spread over Ohio and Minnesota.)

"Some of the circumstances they experienced seemed to parallel those of Christians," he said of the penguins. "The penguin is falling behind, is like some Christians falling behind. The path changes every year, yet they find their way, is like the Holy Spirit."

Mr. Hunt has provided a form on the Web site lionsofgod.com that can be downloaded and taken to the film. "Please use the notebook, flashlight and pen provided," it says, "to write down what God speaks to you as He speaks it to you."