Sure, but speaking as someone who’s worked there for over a decade, I’ll note that Orange County is the cesspool of Southern California anyway. 
The idea that Hollywood is some sort of monolithic entity that conspires to drive any sort of agenda, political or otherwise, is laughably silly. When you look at the infighting between the different studios, stars, producers, and directors, the last thing you expect them to do is come together on any sort of Super-Secret Elite Social Agenda™.
Well, Apos would have it that unless you disagree with yourself you’re not brave enough. 
I saw two columns, the morning of the Oscars, bemoaning the lack of red state, popular, values in the nominated films. Neither suggested which red state films should have been nominated. So some of America is complaining about the challenging of values.
Hollywood doesn’t make movies - people and studios make movies. I don’t think JFK reflected common Hollywood values - Oliver Stone is a bit out there even for them. Rambo, which had Sly Stone winning the Vietnam War certainly didn’t. Someone in the Times commented that if there was such a pro-gay movie Hollywood conspiracy Brokeback Mountain wouldn’t have taken so long to get made.
I’ll agree that this does not represent quite as much bravery as they imply. But if someone honestly has a position, which is a minority one in the country as a whole, I don’t quite get why you think they have not examined it, or why they should make a movie going against what they believe in. It’s not like there is a sellout shortage out there that needs to be filled.
I don’t think any of these movies does whammo box office in Darfur. :rolleyes: It is possible that they care, it is also possible they’re looking for material.
Way back when, an era a long time ago called “before the 1980s”, someone who wanted to challenge the establishment was called a liberal and someone who didn’t want such challenges was called a conservative.
Ergo, you sort-of couldn’t challenge the establishment and be anti-liberal. But I think the OP could have a point if the terms were used correctly. In particular, note that Big Hollywood is an establishment. It’s greedy, corrupt, unwilling to take chances, etc. So a true liberal could make a movie exposing the dark underbelly of the conservative Hollywood megapowers. Something a lot more daring than “The Player.”
Big Hollywood takes credit for the chances they passed on but worked for Little Hollywood. E.g., “Brokeback Mountain.”
Because, as much as Americans like to pretend it isn’t so, liberals and Hollywood are both part of America. Hollywood is American culture. Its movies are made by Americans, for Americans, and Americans love them. Hollywood, part of America, is challenging values other Americans hold.
Hollywood isn’t saying, “We challenged your values.” They are saying “We are challenging our values” - Us particular Americans are challenging dominant values in American society.
I think the problem here is that you’re doing this thing Americans do, where they pretend Hollywood isn’t part of the country.
But…but…Hollywood is full of liberals that are leading America astray with sex, drugs and rock’n’rolll!
Heh.
Hollywood is a business, plain and simple, and a very conservative one at that (hence the formulamatic pictures it produces like flapjacks at a Oklahoma truckstop). Like Captain Renault, it bends with the wind. There are a handful of filmmakers that have sincerely spoken out, bucked the system, and challenged values–I’m thinking people like Haskell Wexler, John Sayles, or Carol Reed–but these were people who were on the outside looking in, held at arm’s length by respected figures in the industry and only held up as examples of how rebellious Hollywood could be when that served a studio well in a marketing sense. Whatever value-challenging the movie industry has to offer is a calculated shock, intended to sell tickets.
I still can’t figure out why people place any credence in the Oscars. It’s as clearly a sales and promotion tool as much as a full page glossy of a bikini-clad woman leaning on a Jaguar is for a car dealer, and more lewd and shameless than the latter. There are dozens of films released every year that are superior to the big studio offerings that are nominated for an Oscar but which never get anything like a fair shake. It’s a very, very silly game.
Stranger
But it’s such a nice dream to have…
But it did make a point relevant to this thread: [spoiler]A subplot involves an idealistic writer/director who wants to make a message picture about the death penalty: A woman is wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to the gas chamber. A cop has second thoughts about the evidence, re-investigates, and proves her innocence. But – and the writer is adamant on this point – he is too late to save her. Because that’s what happens in real life – some people are wrongly convicted, and executed.
As the film gets made, of course, the ending has the cop saving the woman (firing a shotgun through the gas-chamber window) and walking out with her in his arms. And even the writer defends it, based on a test audience’s negative reaction to the other ending.
The point being: Hollywood liberals might talk the talk, but what they really want is to please the audience. They serve us what they think we want to eat. So we’re really to blame for what we get.[/spoiler]
Bingo. I think **Ayalbmaj **put it well but I’ll try to add to it somewhat if I can.
The trouble is Apos, your’re reading this as "we challenged our [Hollywood] values. Hollywood doesn’t have values. It’s a shorthand for the movie industry. When used more specifcally it usally refers to the movie industry centered in and around Hollywood. Hollywood doesn’t have values anymore then Wall Street has values.
Now you could claim there’s a cultural identity associated with Hollywood, as in “I grew up in West Hollywood” but generally, Hollywood is used to refer to the industry itself.
You would certainly be correct in saying the comment was overly self-congratulatory in that the movie industry generally doesn’t put anything out that “challenges values” until fairly late in the game; usually not until someone else has done it and a potential audience is identified. This is not to say that Hollywood doesn’t at times produce movies that promote social change, but rather, that they rarely if ever strike the first blow.
I don’t get why Hollywood is labeled “liberal”. It seems to me that whenever conservative / moral majority / christian groups complain about Hollywoood, it’s for promoting sex and violence. Of course, every now and then, the movie industry touches upon some social isse, but the vast majority of releases are popcon flicks with strong machismo ethos. How’s that promoting a liberal agenda?
Many of these actors understand that they’re there to fucking pretend for a living. A few don’t understand this, and these few tend to be the most vocal, hectoring the unwashed masses.
Clooney is but one of these twits, preceded by blowhards like Alec Baldwin and his ilk.
It takes a cetain iota of damn near clinical narcissism to be a succcessful actor, and to a true narcissist, we are all but props, mere things serving as an audience.
And since a number of actors have but marginal educations outside of their vocational training, many are literate in a highly selective way, in that they are familiar with what the screenwriters produce.
This is how we got actresses playing farmers testifying before Senate and House Committees on Agriculture.
Or they get “educated” by serving as “ambassadors” for sundry causes. They read the brochure (or at least their “staff” did), they got the VIP brieding, and their handlers keep them “smart”, at least for public consumption.
But some of these actors don’t grok the distinction between pretending/acting and understanding. The actors aren’t hired to understand. They’re pretty, and in many cases trainable.
But at some point, they were taught that attractive=popular=important. This was backed by lots of money. In some cases, the actor mistaklenly believes that smart somehow enters into the equation at some point.
Well, actor, it doesn’t. Shut the loving F$#K! Up and act, you monkey. you trained organ gringer monkey, dance! dance! dance!
Reference to which actressess?
Why is it OK for the rest of the population to be involved in public debate but not actors?
You cannot be engaged in public debate without a public forum. Celebrities’ sound bite opinions are distributed across the planet in a flurry of news reporting; yours are not. If the celebrity wants to debate, let him or her sit with an opponent in a circumstance where both have the same exposure, and then they can have it out.
Must be all the Jooooos.
It, of course, isn’t. I’ll ditto the truism that Hollywood, being one of the biggest industries in the country, is naturally conservative, and can’t afford to sell people what they don’t want to see. I’ve never heard of any progressive people praising Hollywood. The industry gets criticism from both sides (but only the leftist criticism is valid, since, again, Hollywood is a huge, international business that sells only what people want, so anybody speaking on behalf of a majority group (i.e. Christians, or “oppressed white males”) has nothing to complain about since they’re adequately served most of the time).
Also, the person who made that comment admitted later, correctly, that Hollywood only reflects, instead of leads, the nation’s values.
I agree with you liberal. Hollywood traditionally follows the money and doesn’t like to ask hard questions about anything. The changes that took place in Hollywood were paved by the stage, and those were opened first by literature.
Hollywood is pretty much last dog to the dish when it comes to social awareness (anybody think it have anything to do with the obscene wealth and opulence in which most of them live?).
Besides, what’s more important: Spending 45 million dollars on a film project to tell everyone how bad poverty is, or to give 45 million dollars to a charity that will help the poor.
While I hold some conservative values, I also hold some liberal values, which are not fully at odds with each other. Hollywood talks a much better game then they’ve ever played, and like their counter-parts on the right, like to congratulate themselves for how clever and important they are.
Sorry for the rant, I’ll leave lest I get us sent to the pit.
The average person is just as welcome to have the media report their opinions as a celebrity. If the media is unwilling to report your comments to that extent, perhaps that suggests there is more of a market for the celebrity’s opinions. If you are upset that your opinions are not so well reported, you should improve the marketability of your opinions. After all, why should another person restrict their speech simply because others are more willing to hear it?
I’m not. I’m not advocating restricting anything either; in fact, I’m advocating broadening it. It has nothing to do with a willingness to listen, but with a conduit for the voice. I’m as willing to listen to the opinion of some unknown woman in Ohio as I am to listen to Susan Sarandon. But Ms. Sarandon doesn’t bother lending her microphone to unknown women.
Ms. Sarandon does not own the microphone; it belongs to the media outlet that covers her. Why should the media have an obligation to lend their microphone to anyone, much less someone their target audience has never expressed a desire to hear?