# Why does "Hollywood" think it's challenging "our" (supposedly shared) values? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 6, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-hollywood-think-its-challenging-our-supposedly-shared-values/347291 "2006-03-06T20:20:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-hollywood-think-its-challenging-our-supposedly-shared-values/347291/81 "2006-03-09T15:01:55Z")
> [@ayalabmaj](#): > > Why should Hollywood make right wing propaganda? My point was that if people in Hollywood really wanted to ‘challenge their shared values’, they’d make movies that took opposite positions from the established belief system in Hollywood. If they think ‘challenging your values’ is a good thing, at least to make you think, then why not do that? After all, that’s what they claim they are doing when they make movie after tedious movie glorifying left-wing causes, even including glowing portraits of totalitarian thugs (i.e. Castro and Che Guevera). So if you’re going to explore the limits like that, why not on both sides? Why not make a Libertarian film that makes an honest attempt to portray a Libertarian society (other than as a dystopic cautionary tale)? Why not make a few more movies that explore the limits of big government, and show it failing? Lord knows, they make enough movies showing the failures of big business. > [@](#): > > If Hollywood is such an insular community, why is it so effective at making product that appeals to Americans? Americans watch a hell of a lot of movies. They buy a hell of a lot of DVDs. The majority of these are made by Hollywood. If the filmmaking community is so out of touch and elitist, how does it continue to make a product that so effectively speaks to American society? Okay, let’s be clear. 99% of what Hollywood makes is inoffensive pap designed purely to make money by appealing to the widest spectrum possible. These aren’t the movies we’re talking about. We’re talking about the movies George Clooney was talking about - the ones that ‘challenge our beliefs’. The serious ones, with a pretension of having a a big message. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-hollywood-think-its-challenging-our-supposedly-shared-values/347291/82 "2006-03-09T15:07:14Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > My point was that if people in Hollywood really wanted to ‘challenge their shared values’, they’d make movies that took opposite positions from the established belief system in Hollywood. If they think ‘challenging your values’ is a good thing, at least to make you think, then why not do that? That reasoning is deliberately obtuse. You know full well “challenging shared values” means the values of society as a whole, not some self-reflective Hollywood navel gazing. But you knew that. ---
**Author:** ![pizzabrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9c0ed/32.png) [@pizzabrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pizzabrat)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-hollywood-think-its-challenging-our-supposedly-shared-values/347291/83 "2006-03-09T15:11:05Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > After all, that’s what they claim they are doing when they make movie after tedious movie glorifying left-wing causes, even including glowing portraits of totalitarian thugs (i.e. Castro and Che Guevera). Weren’t you already told that _Motorcycle Diaries_ wasn’t a product of Hollywood? And when did Hollywood praise Castro? ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-hollywood-think-its-challenging-our-supposedly-shared-values/347291/84 "2006-03-09T15:54:42Z")
> [@pizzabrat](#): > > And when did Hollywood praise Castro? I suppose he’s refering to [Comandante](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342213/). And while I agree in some part with **Sam** , I’d like to know what he means by this: > [@](#): > > the established belief system in Hollywood. Please don’t come dragging with “liberal, d’oh!” because that’s akin to complaining about the “Jewish Banker / Communist conspiracy”. You’re a far cry from convincing me that Hollywood ( as a shorthand for the movie industry of the U.S.) is liberal. There are some very vocal actors and directors, but they certainly don’t make up all of Hollywood. ---
**Author:** ![pizzabrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e9c0ed/32.png) [@pizzabrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pizzabrat)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-hollywood-think-its-challenging-our-supposedly-shared-values/347291/85 "2006-03-09T16:07:59Z")
> [@The Gaspode](#): > > I suppose he’s refering to [Comandante](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342213/). So HBO Documentary alone, among the three other Spanish production companies and Italian distribution company is enough to eek that film in under the Hollywood banner? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-hollywood-think-its-challenging-our-supposedly-shared-values/347291/86 "2006-03-09T16:32:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Agreed. Let’s just say, whatever Michael Moore put into making _Farenheit 9-11_ was better spent than if he had given it to Mother Theresa’s order. Even though the film failed to swing the election. The money Michael Moore put into _Farenheit 9/11_ would be better invested in anti-anxiety drugs and psychiatric treatment for Moore. A more vituperative individual is rarely seen outside of comic book villians. He needs help, and I say this in only a half-joking manner. Seriously, Michael…seek help. > [@pizzabrat](#): > > Weren’t you already told that _Motorcycle Diaries_ wasn’t a product of Hollywood? And when did Hollywood praise Castro? But it’s more convenient to lump the things you dislike together and label them with one banner: “Hollywood”, 'liberals", et cetera. (Note that the same is true in other directions; all “conservatives” are not fag-bashing jesus freaks, either.) I don’t think Oliver Stone’s self-funded and barely distributed documentary on Castro counts as a holistic endorsement of his regime by Hollywood. In fact, aside from a few popular mouthpieces, I can’t see that “Hollywood”–that is to say, the major Los Angeles-area studios–have any political agenda whatsoever. They want to make money, plain and simple, and will make and market films based upon how much cash and acclaim they’ll get for it. They’ll sop out a few bucks to a popular star to pursue his or her hobbyhorse project, re: Clooney’s _Good Night, and Good Luck_, but only as payment for getting him to star in a mindless-but-profitable big budget picture. As for celebrities speaking out on issues: these folk are so used to having a microphone and camera shoved in their face and asked the most personal questions about their lives that sharing a personally held political opinion must seem totally inconsequential. And when you have people hanging off your every word (regardless of how ill-informed it is) you tend to think that you must know something special about the topic; witness Leonardo DiCaprio and his muddle-headed environmental rants. To a certain extent, publicists and studios like that sort of thing; it makes for a strong public presence (as long as it doesn’t alienate the majority audience). This is like the Dalai Lama lecturing on neuroscience–it sounds good and makes him seem educated on the topic, but to those who are versed in the field of research, it’s meaningless gibberish. Hollywood–the major movie production studios and distributors–are interested in creativity and contesting values only insofar as it returns a profit. In this sense, it’s a more ethically bankrupt industry than marketing, but not quite as bad as politics or advocacy journalism. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-hollywood-think-its-challenging-our-supposedly-shared-values/347291/87 "2006-03-09T21:44:03Z")
> [@pizzabrat](#): > > And when did Hollywood praise Castro? Believe it or not, some people seem to believe exactly that. See _Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant_ – [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260433/sr=8-3/qid=1141939331/ref=sr\_1\_3/002-2914095-6024022?\_encoding=UTF8](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260433/sr=8-3/qid=1141939331/ref=sr_1_3/002-2914095-6024022?%5Fencoding=UTF8) (I came across that book browsing in the Curent Events section at Barnes & Noble. Partially glimpsing the title, I assumed “Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant” must be **Hitler** – because he’s the dictator I’ve seen in the most movies.) ---
**Author:** ![ayalabmaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/54ee81/32.png) [@ayalabmaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ayalabmaj)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-hollywood-think-its-challenging-our-supposedly-shared-values/347291/88 "2006-03-10T01:03:15Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > My point was that if people in Hollywood really wanted to ‘challenge their shared values’, they’d make movies that took opposite positions from the established belief system in Hollywood. If they think ‘challenging your values’ is a good thing, at least to make you think, then why not do that? I explained that. You don’t understand that Hollywood is part of America. Hollywood, **part of America** is challenging the dominant values in American society\*. You came up with this fantasy that Clooney was discussing the mythical values of an industry. \*If you Clooney. I believe they are rather behind the times when it comes to exploring new ideas. > [@](#): > > Why not make a Libertarian film that makes an honest attempt to portray a Libertarian society (other than as a dystopic cautionary tale)? You can stretch suspension of disbelief only so far. > [@](#): > > Why not make a few more movies that explore the limits of big government, and show it failing? Lord knows, they make enough movies showing the failures of big business. Because people want to make good movies, not political screeds. Evil or disinterested businesses work within the context of drama because they’re large powerful and faceless. There are so many movies with the government as the villians for the same reason. Just because you’re not seeing right-wing porn at your multiplex, it doesn’t mean that by extension everything that is there is an evil left wing plot. > [@](#): > > Okay, let’s be clear. 99% of what Hollywood makes is inoffensive pap designed purely to make money by appealing to the widest spectrum possible. These aren’t the movies we’re talking about. We’re talking about the movies George Clooney was talking about - the ones that ‘challenge our beliefs’. The serious ones, with a pretension of having a a big message. You said “Hollywood is an insular community.” If Hollywood is such an insular industry, how is it so successful at making moves which appeal to the widest spectrum possible? ---
**Author:** ![Leechboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9fc348/32.png) [@Leechboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leechboy)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-hollywood-think-its-challenging-our-supposedly-shared-values/347291/89 "2006-03-11T05:30:39Z")
Nitpicks - 1977 Annie Hall (even geeks get the girl) Closer to Geek gets country girl, helps her become more sophisticated, she outgrows him and the relationship fails. They eventually become friends. 1984 Amadeus (non-offensive bio-pic) Provided you weren’t Mozart or Saleiri. 1994 Forrest Gump (being a baby boomer was fun) Closer to: conformist idiots have all the luck 1998 Shakespear in Love (non offensive set piece and bio-pic) Not so much a bio-pic as bio-satire. 2004 Million Dollar Baby (everyone can be a winner) That’s really the message you got from an assited suicide? 2005 Crash (we did bad things to blacks, and still do) More we do bad things to each other, and still do. Actually it’s closer to WE DO BAD THINGS TO ACH OTHER, AND STILL DO!!! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-hollywood-think-its-challenging-our-supposedly-shared-values/347291.md?page=4)