And the Academy Award goes to… not you guys
The Poet Omar on Oct 20 2006 at 4:02 am | Filed under: Culture, The Poet Omar's Page
Like many other people who find themselves slightly to the right of the Hollywood crowd (both politically and geographically speaking), I find myself constantly baffled by the fact that despite the legions of potential conservative or libertarian movie fans out there, very few conservative or libertarian films every appear at our local twelve screener. In the past, I’ve attributed this to the fact that the Hollywood crowd, being essentially narcissistic, only likes to play to itself. They don’t like people who disagree with their conceptions of the world. After having a quick read of this article, however, I’m beginning to question my assumptions about the lack of existence of a bona-fide right or at least right-leaning counterpart to Hollywood.Â
Ross Douthat makes some very good points here. Until very recently, the Right in America has essentially ignored the culture war. We’ve decided that Hollywood is basically a bunch of pinko degenerates that we want nothing to do with. Which is sad given the fact that more and more Americans today take the silver screen seriously. Textbook examples would be Michael Moore’s “documentaries,” Al Gore’s “documentary,” and “psycho-political thriller” The Manchurian Candidate (2004 version, not the original). When it comes to influencing people via popular entertainment, the Right is not only asleep at the wheel, but drifting off the road into the woods. It’s about time that we revived our presence in this critical battlefront of the culture wars. Hollywood has been far, far too successful at spreading beliefs and attitudes that are antithetical to our own. Folk marxism? Been there, done that. Bush-bashing? Old news. Free advertising for leftists? Better believe it.
For the libertarian and conservative movers and shakers, however, it’s going to take more than just the occasional indy-film documentary to get audiences’ attention. We need real actors, real directors, and, for crying out loud, talented writers. Remeber that the competition is good. Very good. They have been doing this for almost a century and we are playing on their turf.  If the libertarian conservative film industry is ever to get off the ground, they are going to have some tough battles ahead that they are going to have to win. Not that I consider it to be a particularly “conservative” or “libertarian” film, but remember the Hollywood crowd’s reaction to The Passion of the Christ? Just imagine what it’s going to be when someone actually releases a serious, die-hard libertarian movie. Get ready for this fight, guys. And you know what? It’s about time we had it.
Sphere: Related Content38 Responses to “And the Academy Award goes to… not you guys”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
Just imagine what it’s going to be when someone actually releases a serious, die-hard libertarian movie.
I would count Serenity in that category, though it was more of a cult movie than anything else. Pretty much if you weren’t already a Firefly fan, or a friend/relative of a Firefly fan, or talked into it by that total stranger Firefly fan standing in line in front of you at the theater (*cough*), you didn’t see it. No really big names were involved, so it didn’t achieve enough circulation to reach memetic critical mass.
I’m up for making some movies! How about this: A Catholic, a Muslim, and an Atheist start a blog … stop me if you know this one.
So anyway, then a lot of stuff happens. There’s a car crash and a bikini team … not necessarily related (we can leave that up to editing) … and one of the characters has this parrot (or maybe a weasel) and they foil a robbery of smalltown bank by praying for a giant brass copy of the Constitution that’s hanging over the vault door to fall at just the right moment. And then the heroes pull out their concealed weapons (either “properly permitted” or “we don’t need no stinkin’ permits!” depending on marketing analyses) and nab the erstwhile thieves only to discover that they are actually IRS agents!
Then some more stuff happens … a car chase … throw in an alligator or a snake … Kevin Bacon makes a cameo appearance … and , voila! You gotta movie!
That’s gold, Baby. Gold!
It is not exactly libertarian, but they are planning on filming part of “Atlas Shrugged”.
I would second Serenity. If you haven’t already seen it, I highly recommend it. It’s probably the best we’ll get for quite a while.
Yes Serenity and Firefly both had a strong if not libertarian, then individualist/anti-govt streak in them. I remember Instapundit linking to a TCS(maybe?) column about this when Serenity was coming out.
Also as someone else mentioned, they are planning on making “Atlas Shrugged”. I was somewhat surprised to learn that Angelina Joelie is going to be the lead, and is a huge Ayn Rand fan, (but she seemed so nice, who knew?)
Can we count Clint Eastwood’s new film? The one about marines invading Iwo Jima? He’s a registered libertarian I believe
I think “The Incredibles” works as a libertarian movie.
And therein lays your problem.
First of all, the Right needs to abandon the belief that there is a “culture warâ€. How can one enlist real actors, directors, and talented writers when your pitch to them is, “We need you on the front lines of ideology.â€?
Culture is as culture does. And the only people waging “war†are those that would wish to arrest artistic ideas. Don’t believe me?
Mr. Douthat’s article, while I believe riddled with problems, is correct in one regard,
How can the Right wish to expand its influence with the artistic community if it constantly embraces those who wish to destroy it?
Tony Perkins, and his ilk, do everything in their power to restrict. They employ the federal government to levy heavy fines to the industry that gives venue for art. Read this.
And then there is the Republican’s own Alaska Sen. Ted “bridge to nowhere†Stevens, and his desire to regulate even pay television.
As I’ve said for many years, the Right’s problem isn’t with Hollywood, it’s with itself. Conservative/libertarian ideas within art cannot foster when it is tethered to Norman Rockwellian traditional limitations. Art must be allowed to push boundaries. Art is at its best when it imitates reality. There will be nudity, there will be foul language.
Douthat continues,
The problem isn’t that the Family research whudeverthef*ck can’t compete with Will and Grace, the problem is that they actively seek to destroy it. Again, how can you foster art when you wish to destroy it?
Also, there is nothing really “Left†about shows like W&G, Friends, Sex in the City. There is no Marxist message. There is no Statist theme. All they do is satirically depict
The Lefthomosexuals, single mothers, etc… living normal, everyday lives. OH THE HUMANITY.Culture war… puh-leez.
This type of “war of ideas†is a losing battle. If the Right wishes to engage the artistic community, it needs to abandon “traditional†ideas that homosexuality is a sin, single mothers are whores, and non-Christians are bad people doing everything in their power to bring down the country.
Pathetic, really. And I will not entertain suggestions that I am exaggerating. Don’t make me link and quote… because I’ll do it.
Hollywood is not a factory for Leftism. It is an industry like everything else. And when films and other forms of art produce conservative/libertarian ideas, the only thing Hollywood cares about is if it will sell.
And THAT is nothing but conservative/libertarian. Take it to the bank.
I found it an amusing fact that this festival was held in Dallas. The very community that recently fired a school teacher for showing school children examples of classical art.
Pathetic, really.
Poet… I’m going to go out on a limb – judging by the many words I have read over the past – that you are more culturally conservative that most of your libertarian allies. It is good to see you question your assumptions about the lack of existence of a bona-fide Right or at least Right-leaning counterpart to Hollywood. The consumable ideas exist, but its that they are arrested by other, more influential members of the Right.
Build it and they will come. Just don’t check deviance at the gate.
Cheers.
Great idea, Michael.
But please tell me there’s room for a town drunk character.
You, know. For comic relief. ;)
Michael, lol.
Achillea, Buck, ChrisB : I have never actually heard of Serenity or Firefly. Thanks for the heads-up. I will have to head down to the local Bankbuster video and check them out.
As for Atlas Shrugged being filmed … hope you bought stock in film manufacturing companies. The demand is about to outstrip the supply. Actually, Atlas may work better as a television series rather than a movie with at least a few seasons dedicated to John Galt’s speeches.
Omar,
I would take that threat seriously. Pogue is dangerous with loaded links.
Lance, although I have not yet seen The Incredibles, I’ve heard the same thing about it.
Cha! As if!
Well, maybe you could accidentally set the police station on fire after you are thrown in the drunk tank (a la Otis), but the town constable forgets to frisk you and remove your Corvoisier and Cohibas before you cand do your damage. The fire would, of course, enable the escape of the foiled bank-robbers/IRS agents, who would then be re-captured by an armed citezenry rising up (there could be a car chase with a tricked-out van and a sort-of talking dog in this scene).
Or you could just drive drunk and get into a car crash with the bikini team bus. Hilarity and mayhem ensue (”… and SCENE! … fade to black … WRAP!).
Have your agent call me.
Pouge: Yes, I make no attempt to hide the fact that I am much more culturally/religiously conservative than your run-of-the-mill Objectivist Libertarian. I don’t necessarily find the two to be incompatible, especially since my basic premise is that the federal government should have no hand in religion (either promoting or destroying it).
Regarding the “culture wars,” I must respectfully disagree with you. Many, many of the modern aspects of socialism/marxism that have been incorporated into our daily lives and are accepted without question by our electorate have achieved that status thanks to constant Hollywood reinforcement. Gay marriage, to take just one example, would have been a taboo subject in electoral debates just twenty years ago. Now, it’s a major buzzword on the campaign trail. Thanks, Will and Grace (and it’s predecessors)! Top-rated television programs and movies have a deep impact on our culture and attitudes whether we would like them to or not. For the past hundred years or so (certainly since the 1950’s), only one side has been getting its message out. That has been a glaring error on the part of libertarians and conservatives. Yeah, we get one or two flicks a year that might vaguely be called conservative or libertarian or just patriotic (Saving Private Ryan, Memphis Belle [which, incidentally is historically inaccurate to the point of being near ludicrous], vulgar, bizarro, but highly amusing Team America and the upcoming Flags of Our Fathers). We haven’t really had many quality blockbuster films that dare to take on statism or leftist beliefs. It just doesn’t happen. So when Joe American goes to the movies, he only hears (and is subtly influenced by) one side’s opinions.
This is the same type of problem as the ongoing debates over what is actually being taught at universities. Students are not getting educations; they are getting indoctrinations. In the absence of opposing points of view, reasonable, objective opinions cannot be reached on critical issues. Conservatives (and libertarians) long-ago abandoned the universities and look where that particular tactic has gotten them.
While you may personally find that the idea of a “culture war,” is wrong or non-existent, there are many on both the left and right who would disagree. Leftists happen to control Hollywood and the movie and television mediums, while right-wingers control the radio. While Air America may not have been terribly successful, it most assuredly represented a tightly focused leftist counterattack on the conservative held territory that is talk radio. When are we going to see a conservative or libertarian counteroffensive into the movies or television?
Then you haven’t been listenting to actors and directors off-screen interviews. There are numerous openly Castroite marxists, a few out-and-out Stalinists, and more than a few anti-American radicals. This isn’t your local county Democratic party we’re talking about. These are the die-hard ideologues. Hollywood, although more intellectually vapid, is just as full of hard-lefties as the universities.
So explain their reactions to The Passion of the Christ.
First, if the “war of ideas” is a losing battle, then explain Stalin’s “Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We wouldn’t let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?” He placed a great deal of importance on the war of ideas and his ideological descendents and relatives have placed no less importance on this critical arena. Second, if the Right abandons its ideas, hasn’t it simply become the Left?
But what do you define as boundaries? Are the pathetic shock tactics of leftist “artists” adequate for you? Is “Piss Christ” the best the left can do? Also, I think C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Samuel Johnson, T.S. Elliot and numerous other “conservative” authors most assuredly pushed the envelope without resorting to crass vulgarity or nudity or sex, etc. This is the kind of artist that is needed again. Rockwell is merely a stereotype used by the left to define conservatives’ views on the world.
Many on the left claim that conservatives or libertarians are against art because we don’t support the pork-barrel that is the NEA. This is a misperception. It’s not that we are against art; we’re simply against wasting (our) money. I daresay that many right-leaning individuals support art via charity or outright capitalism. And that is how art should be supported. Not by the coercive force of stealing taxpayer money to pay for an artist’s work, no matter whether we like said work or not. That is one of the roots of libertarian ideology and the antithesis of leftism. The culture war is real and ongoing; it’s better for the right to embrace it and dive head-long into it with the same energy that the left has had rather than continue to play ostrich and ignore the fact that Americans are bombarded daily with “entertainment” that reinforces values that are diametrically opposed to our own.
Two words: Starship Troopers.
Isn’t Heinlein some kind of high priest of Libertarians? Doesn’t Starship Troopers make you happyØŸ
Agreed.
“Accepted without question�??
Any perceived socialism/Marxism that have been incorporated into our daily lives is not a product of Hollywood. It is a product of the elected legislature. Hollywood does not make law.
You can blame Hollywood reinforcement all you like, but policy is not birthed by the boob tube. And any socialism blamed on Hollywood reinforcement must be laid at the doorstep of elected officials and those who elected them. So the blame solely lies with the American public. To blame Hollywood is to accuse the public – the voting public mind you – of being sheep to propaganda.
So what?
Also, being against same sex marriage is anti-libertarian, no matter how you slice it. That is a debate we’ve had, and will no doubt have again. (like Jon Henke, I believe that ALL marriage should not be something that the state should govern.)
Which is proof positive that “Hollywood†is not allergic to such product. And that it is only interested in selling its product. It is a market driven industry. (btw, I loved SPR, although Memphis Belle… well, I just can’t stand Mathew Modine for some strange reason.)
Then Joe America can stay home and watch South Park and keep his money. And if enough Joe’s stay home, Hollywood will notice and change the product.
Again, it is a market based industry. And you can’t really blame the industry if it makes what sells. To do so sounds very …umm… anti-capitalist.
I don’t consider off-screen interviews as a product of Hollywood. It is merely the individual opinions of citizens who happen to work in Hollywood. If every other movie was a F911, then I would agree with you. But its just not the case. (The last movie I saw at the cinema was Superman Returns,… you know that whole “Truth, Justice, and the American Way†socialist/Marxist/Leftist propaganda about how an illegal alien is what America needs.)
And you’ll forgive me if I don’t see Will and Grace as socialist/Marxist/Leftist cultural propaganda. I look at it for what it is… A highly successful sit-com about a gay man and his hottie redhead friend.
What reaction?
Oh, you mean Narnia. Where Hollywood produced a film about a Christian metaphor and openly marketed it to religious groups?
Come on, Omar. You’re looking too hard for a devil that doesn’t exist.
And btw, I know of many conservative actors and the like. Tom Selleck, Kelsey Grammer, Clint Eastwood, Dennis Hopper, etc., etc…
It’s “This type†of war of ideas is a losing battle. And by that I meant Tony Perkins and his ilk trying to stay artistic ideas for which he disagrees with.
Yeah, it’s a losing battle. Can you count how many TV shows about gay people there are now? A lot, I tell you.
You’re going off about piss Christ and what not. I’m not sure piss Christ is a product of Hollywood… I missed that trailer, I guess. But you’re right about art does not have to have vulgarity.
Well, I’m right there with you on that one. The government does not need to be in the business of producing art.
That’s what Hollywood – a free market based industry – is for.
Cheers.
Heh.
Will do.
But you must know, I demand a private dressing room.
…
Well, I’d be willing to share one with the bikini team.
I will have to head down to the local Bankbuster video and check them out.
You might want to pick up the 1st season of Sleeper Cell while you’re there. I think you’d like it (and I confess to a selfish desire to satisfy my curiousity on what you think of it).
And yes, The Incredibles was very good.
Omar,
I think it is a consensus. You need to rent The Incredibles, Firefly and Serenity. No cliff notes, we want proof you saw all three. I am preparing a quiz with a question or two on each movie to ensure your compliance.
Otherwise I am asking Pogue to pepper you with links and quotes, because he’ll “do it.”
I must admit Omar, I am a fan of hottie red-head friends. They have benefits;^)
I will disagree with you a bit Pogue. The industry will certainly react to the marketplace, but Omar is correct that libertarians and conservatives have allowed themselves to be marginalized in the visual entertainment field. Even in a market society the beliefs of the majority of actors (I do not mean the stars, I mean anyone who is in the industry) in any given field do make a difference in the product. Atlas Shrugged demonstrates money alone is not the sole determinant. Music as well (which is really painful, Rush’s 2112 is the most successful explicitly libertarian music I can think of. It depresses me.)
If Omar is calling for political action then I am against it. If he is saying that libertarians and conservatives should find ways to get more involved in the production of more films and TV shows which express our values, then yes, we should. I am more disposed to libertarians doing it, but more shows expressing religious values of conservatives is no skin off my nose. My kids loved Narnia and The Incredibles. Generally once past the age of five they have decided the kind of mealy mouthed pablum that passes for educational children’s shows is uninspiring. I told you they were smart.
Baaahh, baaaahh.
According to Yahoo Movies, the current top ten movies are:
1. The Grudge 2
2. The Departed
3. Man of the Year
4. Open Season
5. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning
6. The Marine
7. The Guardian
8. Employee of the Month
9. One Night with the King
10. Jackass: Number Two
It looks like two gorefest horror movies, one everybody-sucks crime drama, two comedies, one action flick, one drama, one period romance, and one sophomoric wallow. Never having seen any of them (and, frankly, having zero desire to change that state of affairs), I don’t know if any of them are of a libertarian and/or conservative bent. At a guess, maybe The Marine and The Guardian.
Given the success of Fox News when it entered the left-dominated tv news arena, I have to wonder whether the low supply of libertarian/conservative movies is more due to an assumed lack of demand than an actual one.
Thinking about it, I would also consider the Lord of the Rings movies as conservative. They have an unambiguously and irredeemably evil villain and an unapologetically (and heroically) military approach to dealing with him.
I am with you on Lord of the Rings.
Ugg don’t get me started. The book was great and a nice quick read. But the movie is totally different. The director stated his dislike for Heinlein and the book and deliberately set out to turn the book into some sort of nazi satire. A total disgrace to a great book.
The answer to the second part of that statement can be found in the first part.
Maybe conservatives should use the marketplace.
If you feel that there is nothing for you, then don’t go to the movies and keep away from Blockbuster. My guess is that conservatives like the movies and Blockbuster. My guess is that there is no devil in disguise.
Conservatives like to boast that they are the majority. Well, if that’s true, then that’s one hell of consumer power, isn’t it? The market should be flooded with Passion and Narnia films. Televisions should be flooded with The Waltons, Little House on the Prairie, Leave it to Beaver, etc. (Nick at Night doesn’t count as “floodedâ€, but it does prove that there is a niche)
But they’re not. Fact is, Will & Grace and the like, are much more successful than your more “traditional†shows. Why? Well, maybe because the demand for such shows is next to nonexistent. And that is not the fault of Hollywood.
Face it. No one wants to visit Mayberry, anymore.
If they did, the entertainment industry would happily sell it to them.
And the Right has is not marginalized at all. Just this year, they managed to get a television show The Book of Daniel, pulled before it even aired.
I don’t call that marginalized at all.
I call that a consumer base exercising their consumer power. And Hollywood – BEING A MARKET BASED INDUSTRY – fell right in line.
There is just no there, there. There is no Lefty devil reigning over Hollywood using mind control to sway the masses. Other than F911 and documentaries mimicking, there just isn’t any Lefty films rolling out of Hollywood. Sure there are vague undertones in some films that if someone was looking for them, someone might find them. But there are many vague undertones sympathetic to the Right as well.
Almost every action movie ever made.
It seems that Omar and others are peeved that there are a few more shows with gay people in them and a few less shows about Highway to Heaven. Well, too bad. The market has spoken.
But if you feel that I’m wrong, then by all means… go right ahead. That’s what free markets is all about, right? … Right?
And I don’t wanna hear any whining about lack of capitol. Just talk to Kevin Smith about that, why don’tcha’. Grab a camera and get at it. Or stop yer b*tchin’.
I’m all for it. I love The Incredibles and Serenity, I own them both on DVD.
But Lance is right, if one were to push ideology and activism through cinema, then I doubt that would be successful.
People don’t like to be preached to using entertainment. By anyone.
Other than a few Michael Medved’s out there, most people are pretty happy with Hollywood. They keep us pretty well entertained. Not to mention that is one of the few net plus exports remaining. People all over the world like Hollywood.
Hollywood is just used by the Right as a bogeyman. Just like the media.
Which, btw, I can’t wait for the discussion about how the media was lying to us all this time about all that good news coming out of Iraq. [cough]McQ[cough]
Cheers.
I shall endeavor to comply with these demands, however I reserve the right to seek the assistance of Cliff and his associates.
Exactly. If Ben Stein, Kurt Russel, Clint Eastwood, and Vince Vaughn were the only actors in Hollywood, then I would suspect that Hollywood would crank out right-friendly movies. As this is obviously not the case, we see the actual output of Hollywood.
Nope. There is already too much involvement of government and the media (see NEA).
Ah-hah! This is the strategy that I support. More conservative investors need to start taking music, art, and cinema (including television) seriously and start backing good projects, not just ideologically compatible projects. This is no different than political races. You don’t just nominate a candidate because he or she is ideologically similar; they also have to demonstrate the actual abilities needed to successfully campaign for office. This mistake has been made far too often in the political world as it has been in the entertainment world.
And, with the exceptions of a few summer “blockbusters,” and the usual Thanksgivingish Harry Potter or other “family” movie, that list is indicative of the vast majority of Hollywood product. Sad. Really sad.
Pogue, you would be at the top of the the list of all the people in the world that I never thought I’d accuse of this, but good grief man how naive can you be? Have you seen the campaign contributions and attendance at political events of the major Hollywood players? Barbara Streisand has hired her own foreign policy advisor for goodness sake! There is definite collusion between elected leftist officials and the Hollywood crowd to push certain agendas. Hollywood is certainly not above propaganda and have, after a hundred years of so of practice, gotten quite good at it. And yes, I do absolutely accuse the voting public of being sheep to propaganda. And not just from the left; how many people still think Iraq was behind 9/11?
If this isn’t solid evidence that the media world (including Hollywood, TV, radio, music, etc.) has moved the political debate left (toward gay marriage), then you are unconvinceable.
My ideas on this issue are illustrated here
So, may I assume that you are a dedicated Linux user?
So you wouldn’t consider the political leanings of, say, Bush administration officials or DOD officials to be of any influence on their product (policy)? This is merely the individual opinions of citizens who happen to work in Washington, D.C.
Uh, no. Sorry. Passion was produced by Mel Gibson using his facilities (Lion’s Gate studios) and his money. Narnia was produced by Walden Media (owned by Philip Anschutz, billionaire conservative). These are not agencies that are part of the Hollywood establishment. Both are dedicated to operating outside of the realm of Hollywood and I say more power to them, but to claim their products as having been “produced” by Hollywood is incorrect.
Yeah, Pogue, you go ahead and bring your list of right-wingers and I’ll bring mine of left-wingers. I think you know better than to make this comparison, though.
I include the art and music worlds with Hollywood.
Happens every day, guys. Happens every day.
Let’s have a look at overtly political films pushing a left agenda (skipping so-called “documentaries”:
A Civil Action
A Few Good Men
Antitrust
American History X
The Deer Hunter
Erin Brockovich
Good Night, and Good Luck
Guilty by Suspicion
Hero
The American President
Wall Street
The China Syndrome
Primary Colors
Spies Like Us
The Manchurian Candidate (2004)
I could go on and on.
Uh, I guess that was my point. I wish more libertarians were doing so, including on the production side.
He has got you there Pogue, look at me. Baah, baah.
Oh, and I think claiming violent action flicks as necessarily right wing or conservative is, well I don’t know, but I don’t like it.
Also I good point that I meant to make. Thank you, Lance.
For examples of this see Tarantino, Quentin.
Naïve!? Insolence.
Pistols at dawn.;)
Seriously, though. I think we may be debating past one another. I’m suggesting that the entertainment industry is not, necessarily, wholly a factory of Leftism. The industry and its produce, competes for consumer dollars much like any other industry. Sure there will be products flavoring sweet for consumers of a particular ideology, and that a small majority – in the opinion of some – of the products have more sugar than others. This may be due to the demand that consumers place on the industry. The proof is in the pudding. Eat more honey… (sorry, I had to get that in there. I cannot in good conscience mention sugar without advertising its healthier, tastier substitute.)
It would be naïve of me to suggest that more products than not are targeted for consumers open to ideas counter to conservative/libertarian philosophy.
The films you mention in your later comment were no doubt approved for production because the industry feels that there is a market for them. That’s just the free market at work, and any self respecting libertarian should at least respect that if not – in the interest of the market – demand it. One cannot dispute the fact that the entertainment industry is one of the few net plus exports. California is the fourth largest economy (I think), and the entertainment industry is not merely a minute factor.
There are plenty of films produced flavoring sweet for consumers of a different ideology, like among others, the films you mentioned in a previous comment. The idea behind all of these films is for them to be entertaining to targeted markets and, I’m sure they hope, markets not targeted.
If, as I mentioned, there are more consumers sympathetic to ideas of the Right, then the entertainment industry would no doubt respond. The evidence suggests that there is a greater demand for products sympathetic to the Left, or Center-Left.
Again, this is nothing but individuals expressing their political opinions and using their incomes to aid candidates that they believe better represent their interests. This is nothing uniquely Hollywood. The products the EI sells are for the most part are not meant to push an agenda.
When Barbara Streisand request’s Send in the Clowns, you may think she’s asking for Democrats, but I believe that most of her customers feel differently. ;)
Again, I’m holding my arguments to encompass EI’s products and it’s restriction to the marketplace.
I will concede that the majority of players in the EI have ideas leaning Left, but that is true with most industries. Any given field will have a majority of players with ideologies leaning one way or another. The Energy Industry – one cannot deny – has more players with conservative tendencies. Same with construction, corporate law, real estate, NASCAR, etcetera. And their influence over their particular industry will reflect their ideological philosophy – as will their political activism.
Their products, like with the EI, are indentured to consumers.
Oh there is no doubt that entertainment and popular culture can move debate one way or another (see Jack Bauer), but it is limited to the reception of the consumer. My guess is that those consumers that made Will&Grace a success were already open to ideas sympathetic to gay culture.
What Will&Grace did do, is attract the attention of James Dobson and company. Their demands that such culture and any conventional representation of such culture be condemned is what moved the debate detracting their position. That is not the fault of the EI or its consumers, it is the fault of Dobson and his ilk.
If Dobson and others wish to compete with Will&Grace, they most certainly have the opportunity and means. But they don’t, and that’s their fault.
Which is what I’m arguing.
But it’s not as though the industry is void of traditional values. Among many other shows, Everybody Loves Raymond was a highly successful show depicting a stable, heterosexual, Catholic family with loyalty toward their faith. It was a huge success. Better than Will&Grace, I might add.
Yeah, I don’t know what that means. My only dedication lies with my wife and Guinness Draught.
The keyword there is “officialsâ€. These people are employed by the federal government. And any interview given is specifically designed to push public policy. There is quite a difference between a private citizen giving opinion and public office holders doing the “sameâ€. Which, btw, often change dramatically after they leave service.
Well, maybe you’re right. I don’t know too much about who financed what. I categorize such events all under EI. The argument does not diminish. A successful product (Passion) spawned products similar (Narnia). Look for other products to be same similar by anyone, Hollywood or no, interested in selling that genre to eager consumers. I’m like you… More power to them.
Nah. I wouldn’t dare try to match you. My only point is that there are such people who produce in the EI. But go ahead and list them, I’d be interested in just who you believe are Lefty’s.
Much like I include Mel Gibson and Lions Gate Studios with Hollywood, I assume.
Cheers.
Lance:
Well, they’re certainly not “liberalâ€, are they?
I don’t think when Dirty Harry asks punks if they’re feeling lucky – that he’s wishing them comfortable imprisonment, speedy rehabilitation, and an early release.
And look at Omar’s list. Not an action movie amongst them.
Can you think of any? Because I can’t.
Maybe a thriller… or even a mystery. But action movies are not very “progressiveâ€.
Cheers.
In fairness, I think the point being made is that most action movies are intellectually vapid garbage. They don’t, as a rule, exist to push any particular political ideology, they simply exist.
It would take more space than this site has to offer. I’m basing this not just on public statements, but on actual cash spent on supporting left candidates or institutions. Put more simply, their money talks and their … well, out of politeness let’s call it “bull” walks.
No, I don’t think that’s a fair comparison, as the music and art industries (or at least several players in them) try to deliberately associate themselves with tinseltown and its denizens. Gibson, IMHO, is trying to be the next Robert Altman, a successful director who chooses to be an outsider rather than join the Hollywood crowd. Philip Anschutz, OTOH, is deliberately trying to build a conservative counterpart to Hollywood (Walden Media) rather than trying to steer the existing crowd in a more right-wing direction.
Yes, and no. We expect public officials to attempt to influence policy. It is, in effect, their job to do so. It is not the job of Hollywood yo-yos to pontificate on various topics in an attempt to steer the debate in their chosen direction. They are entertainers, not public policy experts. The fact that they have money and fame are the only things that allow them a platform for their views. They were neither elected nor hired, yet they have almost as much influence over policy as those that were. Sad.
What I meant here is that you have presented a false set of choices to the public by indicating that they may either watch the current crop of movies or stay home thus forcing Hollywood to change its product. This is, in effect, like the techno-geeks who insist on using Linux instead of Windows in the rather pointless effort to overthrow the monopoly that is Microsoft. If Joe Public stays home to watch South Park, or whatever, Hollywood will continue to produce exactly the same type of films. It is a monopolistic institution at this point, and there are ways to profit besides box-office ticket sales.
On that issue, I concede that you do have a point. I’m no fan of Dobson and his ilk, however I would argue that if the airwaves are filled with entertainment programming pushing a particular point-of-view, then that does not give the consumer much choice other than to accept it. And let’s not try to reinvent society by telling people to just turn the TV off and read a book. As much as that sentiment warms my heart, it just isn’t going to happen.
Yes, but how many industries (excluding NASCAR, perhaps, [shudder]) have the power of Hollywood and the entertainment industry to come into our homes and propagandize us? I daresay the guy from the power company who reads your meter does come into your home (or at least close to it) on a regular basis, but I suspect the only propaganda he offers is, “pay your bill or we’ll cut ya off.” The EI’s influence is pervasive. Try to get away from it; you can’t. It is a non-stop drumbeat of whatever narrative they are choosing to advance at that particular moment.
Yes, but how many films supporting right-wing ideologies get rejected out of hand simply because of their political leanings? We’ll never know. They may have made billions, but the Hollywood crowd was simply not interested in offering the public the option to accept or reject. And let’s not even get started on the talent agencies that control who makes it or breaks it in Hollywood (the William Morris Agency comes to mind). Hollywood doesn’t give consumers a chance to choose. That’s the nice thing about being a monopoly.
But, I’ve gone on long enough with this. I’ll give you the last word.
Echh… did I just say that? Geez, I’m starting to sound like O’Reilly.
PS My wife informs me that she supports your campaign to advance the cause of honey over the terribly unhealthy alternative which is mass produced sugar. What can I say? She’s an advocate for healthier foods in the schools.
99.9% of all movies don’t exist to push a political ideology. They just exist.
The idea behind them is to sell them to consumers seeking to be entertained.
A few movies have messages, but the vast majority do not.
Umm. Okay.
I’m going to use…
“Pumpernickle”
In fairness, I think the point being made is that most action movies are intellectually vapid garbage.
Hmmm. Depends somewhat on how you define ‘action movie.’ If it’s a matter of a high bodycount with lots of things destroyed, then there are a fair number of movies that generally get classed as dramas which would qualify (Scarface comes to mind). If it’s a matter of making no real effort to expand characterization or plot beyond ‘tough guys wreak havok,’ then any action movie will be, pretty much by definition, ‘intellectually vapid.’
They don’t, as a rule, exist to push any particular political ideology, they simply exist.
Depending how you define action movie, this isn’t necessarily true. There are also action movies which push particular political ideologies without expressly existing to do so. A nihilistic violence wallow such as Boondock Saints has little in common with a shoot-em-up such as The Transporter except a whole lot of blood and spent brass on the ground at the end.
Of course, it’s possible to read hidden meaning into just about anything and it can be impossible to tell the difference between deliberate subtext, unconscious tone, and sheer happenstance.
(and I can’t stand pumpernickel)
Yeah, conservative. Thank you, I’ll be here all week.