A September 13 New York Times article set the stage.
March of the Penguins is now the second highest grossing documentary of all time, thanks in large part to its popularity among conservatives.
This intrigued the NYT, I’m sure in no small measure because the highest grossing documentary is Farenheit 911, made so by liberals.
The NYT verged on mocking conservatives for making cultural analogies to the instinctive family routines of penguins, but not quite.
Leave that to tailgating secularist columnists, who can’t stand the thought of Christians seeing Intelligent Design and lessons for humans in nature, if the lessons have anything to do with Biblical morality.
Neither can they stand the possbility of us bumping their inventive documentary from its top spot.
And so the ridicule has begun, using in part my column on the movie as fodder.
In “‘Penguins’ movie dubbed pro-life, other flights of fancy,” John MacDonald writes in the Arizona Republic (see page 2 to read entire piece here):

[S]eeing the movie as supporting one side of the abortion debate is an even bigger reach. Jill Stanek, a commentator for WorldNetDaily with far too much time to think, wrote after seeing the movie, “I juxtaposed the willingness of penguins to freeze and starve to death for their babies to the unwillingness of humans to forfeit any indulgence whatsoever for their babies.”
Penguins aren’t “willing.” Penguins are penguins. What’s next? A pro-life review of Dumbo?
It’s a movie. It’s a beautiful movie about God’s creatures surviving even when it seems they shouldn’t. Just watch, keep quiet and pass the popcorn.

Lenore Skenazy writes, in her New York Daily News piece entitled, “GOP’s fowl language is lost on me” (also reprinted in full on page 2):

This documentary is not only the blockbuster of the summer, it has become something bigger – “The Passion of the Iced.” Through a quirk of nature stranger than the penguins’ own ability to knock flippers at 70 degrees below zero, American conservatives are embracing this sex-drenched film as the epitome of everything they hold dear.
And not just because its waddling stars remind them fondly of Rush Limbaugh….
“Almost every scene,” opined anti-abortion activist Jill Stanek, “verified the beauty of life and the rightness of protecting it.”
(A movie showing penguins “ripping babies apart,” she added, would illustrate the pro-choice side.)

Indeed. Love that she mentioned that.
I imagine MacDonald and Skenazy must have grown up hating Aesop’s Fables.
On the other hand, it’s interesting that the basis for secular humanism is the theory of evolution. Isn’t that based entirely on Darwin’s observation that apes and humans have similar characteristics?
My, how some of us have evolved.

Arizona Republic
‘Penguins’ movie dubbed pro-life, other flights of fancy
By John MacDonald
Sept. 18, 2005
The biggest problem facing Americans today is that we’ve run out of things to do.
We blow through what’s necessary via podcasts, leaving great gobs of discretionary time that in an earlier era – say, the ’80s – was set aside for churning butter.
With those agrarian days behind us, we’re left with masses of people suffering from an affliction medical researchers refer to as purposis vacatus, which loosely translated means, “I have no life.”
The most recent evidence of this epidemic is the praise lavished upon March of the Penguins, the delightful movie about flightless birds following a mating ritual that’s poignant and, above all, really, really cold.
Each year, thousands of penguins trudge through many miles of desolate Antarctic ice to find the right spot for a new family.
Doesn’t sound too exciting, but with spectacular footage and Morgan Freeman narrating, the movie transcends from documentary to story. And we love a good story.
But with hours of free time left to ponder, apparently some think that March of the Penguins is much more than a movie.
In a New York Times article last week, reporter Jonathan Miller detailed how some individuals and groups have adopted the movie as an anthem to everything from family values to intelligent design.
The film is about grounded birds, but some misguided interpretations have now taken flight.
In the Times, film critic Michael Medved is quoted as saying that March of the Penguins is “the motion picture this summer that most passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child rearing.”
“This is the first movie (some people) have enjoyed since The Passion of the Christ. This is The Passion of the Penguins,” Medved wrote.
The article also quotes National Review editor Rich Lowry as telling a gathering of young conservatives they should see the film: “It is an amazing movie. And I have to say, penguins are the really ideal example of monogamy.”
An Ohio minister has developed a form children can use to take notes about “what God speaks to you” when viewing the movie. As usual, adults bring the buzz kill.
Of course, there are virtues on display in March of the Penguins.
For example, patience. As thousands of penguins march 70 miles to their mating grounds, they form an almost perfectly straight line.
There is no pushing, and not one penguin waddles out of line and marches through the double-yellow left-turn lane just to save a few minutes.
Also, plenty of teaching happens on the thick ice.
The female seems to instruct the male how to care for the delicate egg before she leaves for a while to find food. If he could talk, the male might say, “How can I tell when it’s done?”
And there is devotion.
It’s hard to forget the image of the mother protecting her tiny newborn penguin from howling, freezing wind. Any parent whose child needs reassurance after a bad dream knows all about this.
But for every human trait we may project into this movie, there are plenty more concepts you can only see through a preset imagination.
“That any one of these eggs survive is a remarkable feat – and, some might suppose, a strong case for intelligent design,” wrote Andrew Coffin in World Magazine.
A strong case?
This is a movie about flightless birds. Only someone looking for evidence of intelligent design could find it in a story about huge odds against the penguins’ very existence.
As for the film’s promotion of monogamy, that’s a convenient view. Yes, the emperor penguin finds a mate, and together they form a family that stays together for one frigid winter. The next mating season, all bets are off, and the male goes hippie: He loves the one he’s with.
That’s a testament to monogamy? Sounds more like the Birds Nest at the FBR Open, iced.
Then again, seeing the movie as supporting one side of the abortion debate is an even bigger reach. Jill Stanek, a commentator for WorldNetDaily with far too much time to think, wrote after seeing the movie, “I juxtaposed the willingness of penguins to freeze and starve to death for their babies to the unwillingness of humans to forfeit any indulgence whatsoever for their babies.”
Penguins aren’t “willing.” Penguins are penguins. What’s next? A pro-life review of Dumbo?
It’s a movie. It’s a beautiful movie about God’s creatures surviving even when it seems they shouldn’t. Just watch, keep quiet and pass the popcorn.
____________________
New York Daily News
GOP’s fowl language is lost on me
by Lenore Skenazy
September 18, 2005
What’s black and white and red all over?
“The March of the Penguins,” seen through Red State eyes.
This documentary is not only the blockbuster of the summer, it has become something bigger – “The Passion of the Iced.” Through a quirk of nature stranger than the penguins’ own ability to knock flippers at 70 degrees below zero, American conservatives are embracing this sex-drenched film as the epitome of everything they hold dear.
And not just because its waddling stars remind them fondly of Rush Limbaugh.
No, in watching the story of the emperor penguins’ yearly schlep from iceberg edge to breeding ground to iceberg edge again – this time with adorable penguin chicks hogging the camera – conservatives see a Republican tale of monogamy, heterosexuality, pro-life activism and intelligent (if not particularly colorful) design.
We need more “conservative product” like this, wrote right-wing commentator John Jalsevac.
“Almost every scene,” opined anti-abortion activist Jill Stanek, “verified the beauty of life and the rightness of protecting it.”
(A movie showing penguins “ripping babies apart,” she added, would illustrate the pro-choice side.)
“You have to check out ‘March of the Penguins,'” Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, reportedly told a group of young folk. “Penguins are the really ideal example of monogamy.”
Guess these folks did not see the same soft porn, radical feminist, gay pride, love-the-one-you’re-with, fowls gone wild movie I saw.
Once the swingin’ penguins reach their Woodstock, they don’t so much as nod at their lovers from last year – the ones they BRED with. No, they’re off to grab someone new and play hide the icicle.
Some guy’s videotaping their every shudder? No problemo! Hope it’s in IMAX!
Then, wham, Ms. Penguina gets pregnant. So much for waiting till marriage. She lays an egg, palms it off on this year’s boyfriend and she’s off to freshen her drink.
For months. No men necessary where she’s headed. Sisters are doing it for themselves! This leaves the entire male emperor penguin population milling around on an ice cube with no one to cuddle but … themselves.
Just like prison.
As the movie politely puts it: The males keep each other warm.
Oh, they sure do. Real warm. One right behind the other, pushed closer than marshmallows on a boy scout’s stick.
It’s pitch dark except for the disco light sky. The snow swirls like a fog machine. Let’s just say what happens on the tundra stays on the tundra.
As soon as the women come back, the men cut out. Family dinners? “How was your day at work, dear?” “Please pass the herring”? I don’t think so.
Finally, all the waddlers toddle home, knowing that soon they’ll be back to sleep with someone new.
This isn’t a conservative utopia. It’s Studio 54 on ice.