Staff Reports
In today’s cultural landscape, it seems that creativity has taken a backseat to serving as a propaganda machine for a particular narrative. The latest example of this is a film by Paul Thomas Anderson, titled “One Battle After Another,” which rolled out in cinemas on September 26, 2025, with all the pomp of a Hollywood blockbuster. Despite Anderson’s reputation for more indie films, this one had stars like Leonardo DiCaprio and Sean Penn, as well as Benicio Del Toro, flashy trailers, and a budget that makes one wonder how many accountants fainted at the sight of the receipts. Yet, peering beneath the glitz, one finds a plot thick with radical revolutionaries and leftist fantasies masquerading as profound truths.
This movie is heralded by some as capturing the soul of America, shining a light on those supposedly brave enough to stir change. But let’s not kid ourselves. The film is about romanticizing left-wing violence, glossed over by humor and high-profile performances—this despite the overwhelmingly positive reception it has received, with an 8.3/10 on IMDb and praise as “the best movie of 2025 to date.” The critics miss the mark, speaking of America’s “oppressive” reality—a reality so tyrannical, one might argue, that it doesn’t seem to impede anyone from expressing such criticisms, let alone making lavish films about them.
What’s truly astounding is the mindset behind this production, although claims of a certain Hollywood Reporter review lamenting the public’s distraction by capitalism’s shiny toys cannot be substantiated. In other words, these cinematic masterminds suggest that revolution—violent, aggressive change—is the rightful path, tapping into a fantasy that badly distorts reality. This narrative is not just about a misunderstood country; it’s about justifying violence while posing as self-righteous souls.
The fact remains that leftists frequently call for upheaval, painting their destructive tendencies as a path toward utopia. This film insists on clinging to that belief, misleadingly suggesting that changing language or imagery can alter objective facts. What this amounts to is pure fantasy—a world where opinions trump reality and radicals are somehow the torchbearers of truth. It’s the adults, not just the students, who need a reality check.
This isn’t about denying the capacity for art and culture to critique or enlighten, but there’s an evident irony when the very medium becomes the megaphone for narratives that breed conflict more than they promote understanding. As this supposed “culture” machine churns out such dreck, it becomes crucial to challenge these fantasies with the truth, reclaiming culture from those who would see it twisted into a tool for discord. After all, while films can be artifacts of culture, it’s how truthfully they portray reality that defines their value to society.
Even though the film is based on Thomas Pynchon’s novel “Vineland”, the article’s central premise that this film is receiving negative critical reception appears to be factually incorrect based on available evidence, showcasing overwhelmingly positive reviews.
