Its a film made by Brexit people, for Brexit people and funded by Brexit people. It shows and I suspect even the common pleb will become sceptical at the tankers of bullshit it tries to sail under your nose.
I also consider it rude that OP has not provided his own analysis.
>>20702 What >>20703 said. If you're the sort of swivelled-eye loon who thinks we would be better off outside Europe, you'll love it. Anyone with an ounce of sense will see through it.
My 'thoughts' are that I'm not setting aside an hour and ten minutes to watch some fucking shit I don't have any clue is worth my time, you rancid shit towel.
Done a Google of it. Vice went to the premiere ( http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/brexit-the-movie-review-sam-kriss-martin-durkin ):
>Nigel Farage makes his first appearance a few seconds in, looking like a greased-up newt; the audience bursts into wild applause, and there's more clapping every time he appears on screen, which fortunately means that you can't really hear what he's saying. There's James Delingpole. There's Melanie Philips. Weirdly, all the chinless squawkers are filmed from slightly below, making their heads look even more like puffed-up party balloons. Tony Blair gets boos and hisses. Footage of Ted Heath signing Britain into the European Economic Community has someone shouting "nonce!" Every rude swear was met with uproarious laughter. This isn't a documentary, it's panto.
And an analysis I imagine is/will be repeated by every left-wing columnist and blogger:
>Most people are receptive to a story about little guys crushed by an indifferent state bureaucracy, but the little guys in the audience at Leicester Square were peers of the realm and Eton boys. There's an uncomfortable irony in a film raging against the stacked deck of European crony capitalism being screened to an audience full of hereditary aristocrats. They object to an EU elite telling us what to do – so they financed a feature documentary in which they tell us what to do, with their great leaders shot from slightly below, talking down to the mass of voters. The victims of EU regulation here aren't ordinary workers but businessmen and bosses. They complain that Brussels is interfering in their daily lives because they are the subjects of history, while the rest of us are supposed to cling tight to their coat-tails, pathetically grateful just to be given a job.
>The film is marked by a profound historical illiteracy. Feudalism wasn't about government regulation, it was just a different form of class power. Brexit: The Movie portrays the 19th century as a glorious period of freedom, but for much of the population it was a nightmare. Life expectancy plummeted, children were mangled in factories, millions were killed in Britain's colonies by famine or massacre. Where there's been progress, it's been through the collective action of working people, fighting for cumbersome regulations like "the weekend" and "not poisoning us with lead paint".
>Of course, right-wing ideologues are usually indifferent to stories of the vast suffering that took place under the British Empire. But it's possible to present it another way. The idea that there was a time of enlightened non-interference is a total fiction. When armed cavalry charged on a crowd of protesters at Peterloo, when British soldiers imposed a murderous rule on colonial India, when the wealthy uprooted people from their lands and forced them into workhouses to survive, what was that other than an unacceptable interference into people's daily lives? This is why the upper classes are so excited for Brexit. They see an undemocratic and unaccountable EU elite ruling by diktat and an unfounded sense of their own superiority, and they think: hey, that's our job.
