After actually clicking on some of those links, I see they’re not even real reviews, they’re just reader reviews by screaming, right wing retards who probably didn’t even see the movies.
One more time: what is partisan about those movies?
Is anti-Mccarthyism a “liberal” position?
Why does a movie have to be partisan in order to be political?
Syriana portrays a government that is so in league with “big oil” that it assassinates the leaders of other countries in order to enrich “big oil”. While not expicitly partisan, it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to understand the link that the left often associates between Rebublicans (esp. Bush) and “big oil”.
I didn’t see Goodnight, but the reviewers that I read complained that it showed the E.R. Murrow side as unbelmished saints, while igoring the real threat of communism that existed during the cold war. I’m not saying I agree with that, because I haven’t seen the movie. I’m just relaying what I’ve read.
Based on what I’ve read of the history of the period, Murrow et al. were unblemished saints, at least with respect to this particular issue, and not in the least deceived about the Soviets. More importantly, it is a historical fact that the MCarthy hearings served no real purpose than McCarthy’s self-aggrandizement; there were Communists in the State Department, etc., but Truman had already purged them before McCarthy started making an issue of it.
You obviously haven’t read Ann Coulter’s version! 
But the movie doesn’t suggest that “the Republicans” are to blame, it suggests that the shrinking supply of oil combined with the increasing demand worldwide is bound to lead to corrupion regardless of who’s in charge. There’s nothing “liberal” about that position.
That’s an inaccurate take on the movie. Murrow is not portrayed as anything but hostile and contemptuous towards communism. The film is about Murrow’s decision to condemn McCarthy for his tactics, not for his ideology and it does not remotely defend Communism. It’s also extremely accurate as far as I can tell. It uses real transcripts and archival footage for the most part. I’m not aware of a single thing in the film which was portrayed dishonestly or inaccurately. McCarthy himself is portrayed only in archival footage. There is no actor and no written dialogue for any scene that he’s in. It doesn’t get anymore accurate than that.
Do you believe that anti-McCarthyism is a “liberal” position? Do you beloieve that condemning McCarthy is the same as endorsing Communism?
By the way, Brokeback Mountain is still the number one movie in the country.
Here’s an article from Variety about it. It’s supposed to open in a lot more theaters today and they’re expecting a big weekend.
Really? But like I said, something doesn’t have to be partisan to be political.
Dude, I said I was only relaying what I read and that it wasn’t my view. I’ll see it when it comes out on DVD and get back to you.
As for Brokeback, those numbers still say “estimate”. I wonder why. But there’s no doubt it has jumped to the top if it isn’t at the very top. It’ll drop down below #1 by Monday, though, if not today. Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
I’m going to see the new Underworld movie today. I’ll report back on any liberal bias I spot. Let’s see: vampires… bloodsuckers… Republicans!!!
But question is “Is Hollywood leftist?” In addressing this question, what does it matter if a movie is “political” unless it is political in a “leftist” way?
Even the superheros are against us:
Well, there’s two things we’re talking about. **Diogenes **keeps saying there’s nothing political about Syriana because it doesn’t finger either ther Repuiblicans or the Democrats. Hence my political doesn’t equate to partisan comment.
But I already outlined why I did think Syriana was both political and partisan. Let me rephrase: The movie assumes that our M.E. policy is run by and for the benefit of Texas Oilmen. If you think that isn’t a partisan swipe, then I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Oh, let me add that I’m not saying Syriana’s politics proves that Hollywood leans left. I already said I don’t know know how you would prove that type of sweeping generalization. My comments about Syriana are strictly about Syriana, not about Hollywood in general.
Are you serious? A bunch of links to ‘critics’ on Yahoo movies? You do know why it’s called Yahoo? Any Yahoo can write a movie review.
So some members of the audience thought it was too liberal.
Can something even be too liberal?
But even if the films are liberal, if you have looked at my link to Participant Productions, you would see that both films were made by that company and that company is interested in making political statements through the films they make. The guy in charge was the first president of Ebay and after makeing a billion dollars, he decided to make movies. Since he doen’t care if they make money, he only cares about story and quality.
So yes, GN&GL and Syriana are political films and guess what?
They have a right, given to them by the Constitution of the United States to say what they want to say and if you think they should expouse liberal ideas, then you are Un-American.
Here’s how I see it:
Working behind the scenes in making movies, actors can tell the difference between fantasy worlds and the real world. OTOH, conservatives think that they themselves are characters in a movie (or a Tolkien novel), heroically battling evil forces.
[Speculation]If Hollywood (and the entertainment industry in general) is indeed “liberal”, might it be because people with conservative views are less likely to consider creative fields as viable employment?[/speculation]
Although I’m sure there are numerous exceptions, I suspect that most Hollywood liberals (and conservatives, libertarians, apoliticals, etc.) were that way before they set foot in Los Angeles.
Tallulah Bankhead. The hottest mama from Alabama. With her antics she probably set back lesbian rights at least 20 years. (just kidding)
"My father always warned me about men and booze.
But he never said anything about women and cocaine."
Hmm, anyone who expresses “support for the troops” counts as a conservative?
What about a celebrity who writes and sings a song in praise of one of the heroes of Flight 93 on September 11? A patriotic song all about what makes a great American hero? Would that count as conservative by the above criteria? I’m thinking of “Tuesday Morning” by Melissa Etheridge.
Whoops, no. Mark Bingham was gay. Scratch them off the list…
Hollywood hasn’t always leaned left. During the golden age of the studio system from the 1920’s to the 50’s, while many actors and writers certainly had leftist sympathies, most of the studio heads were to the right of Attila the Hun (and had even worse temperments). In fact, until recently, there was always a significant block of actors, directors, and (especially) studio executives who the Republicans could count on for support. I think the reason why there appears to be a more pronounced shift “leftward” in Hollywood is because the GOP’s alliance with the religious right has gotten a lot closer and that scares many people in the entertainment industry–even nominal Republicans.
That’s pretty much true. Conservative views often go hand-in-hand with a puritanical mindset. America was settled by people who disdained anything that diverted you from either hard work or thinking about God. That attitude certainly isn’t very conducive to anyone who wants to get into a “frivolous” field like the arts.
Or maybe DtC has a longer-term picture of “Texas Oilmen” than you do? I may be dating myself here, but when I hear “Texas Oilmen” the first person I think of is Lyndon Johnson. Most notably, the original Brown and Root (later KBR and now Halliburton) got their political start, and their first major government contracts, working with Johnson.
While Businessmen, Preachers, and Guys in the Military like to get drunk and fuck hookers.
