See, this drives me nuts. I find it extremely masculinist to *demand* that artists "critique" events in a manifest way: We must a take these issues head on and reveal the truth of them to people. It's a maddeningly socialist way of thinking about things. Don't these events register in other ways than in immediate, literal consciousness; don't they register affectively and unconsciously? Yes, they do, but the volunteerist command to express the effects in their explicit content erases all this in favor of some pseudo-engagement, and succumbs to the logic whereby the state's actions are totally determinative of social life.
[...]
You're being very hard on this essay/presentation, which has obviously hit some registers.
So hard in fact, I think you've failed to notice that in part one, the author provides quite a few examples of Hollywood doing exactly what you describe -- i.e., look at the way the world works (or pieces of it) without the "maculinist" commands or socialist lecturing you accuse 'Trots' of yearning for. (BTW, please explain why 'socialist' is, apparently, a term of derision for you).
Part One:
<http://wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/nyc1-m16.shtml>
I'm delighted that he discusses one of my favorite movies, 1941's 'High Sierra" (perhaps the ur Noir). From my point of view, Mr. Walsh is criticizing and critiquing the current retreat (with noteworthy exceptions) from structural explorations by appealing to the work H'wood did in the past.
No "golden age" nostalgia, just a compare and contrast.
.d.