Why should Hollywood make right wing propaganda?
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?
Glad this came up, too. Many right-wingers, apparently stretching a trait employed in other aspects of life, like to lump all movies that offend them together under “Hollywood”. I’m reminded of one bubble-headed pundit who was outraged about Hollyood’s Hedwig and the Angry Inch promoting a transsexual lifestyle. Hint: If you ever see a movie that’s ever truly provocative, daring, and controversial, chances are it’s not from Hollywood.
Actually, Hollywood is even less insular than that, since it has to appeal to the international audience even more than it has to appeal to us. That’s why so many blockbusters are so braindead and irrelevant - the lowest common denominator plummets when you expand the audience past our borders. It’s ironic we get so much flack from foreigners about the mindless quality of our films, when they’re the damned reason for it. Foreigners don’t want to have to navigate through thick dialogue to explore subtle observations about our (American) society, all while reading subtitles. They want to see cars exploding, and giant apes on rampages, and they want to see it dubbed. Other countries, like France, can afford the filmed cultural introspections that we wish we could make - it’s their niche. Since we’ve got the dumb corner market, smart is all they can offer. Check out the box office figures for Kong '05. By the end of January, it’s made more overseas than it has here yet. That’s alot of money to lose just to be socially relevant.
Man, Raging Bull should have swept that year. Not that there are any deep social lessons to be learned from it (other than that Jake LaMotta is a brutish, insecure, jealous bastard) but an amazing piece of cinema, nonetheless.
If it were, John Sayles or David Crononberg would be high on the list. But their films are neither popular nor commercially successful, appealing (as they do) to a small niche of movie-goers. Hollywood likes the idea of a maverick outsider–read Terry Gilliam’s experience on the topic in his autobiography–but they’re rarely willing to pony up the dough for such for a very simple reason: they want a guaranteed return on investment. Making a noncontreversial feel-good pic, or one that evicerates, say, Nazis ('cause, you know, it’s always risky to criticize genocide) is both a guaranteed sell and a good candidate for shameless self-approval. The Hollywood studios (none of which, save for Paramount, are actually located in Hollywood) would never produce or release a movie like The Downfall or The War Zone. But I’ve no doubt they’ll pat themselves on the back for launching a clay pigeon like Thank You For Smoking.
Stranger
:: snerk :: 
I don’t see a lot of people taking celebrities’ opinions seriously in daily life. In fact, I’m far more used to hearing people ridicule celebrities for having the temerity to have political opinions. I certainly haven’t seen any signs that many people regard Scientology more seriously because of Tom Cruise. Much the reverse, actually.
And my impression watching the governor’s race was that Arnie mostly won because he sold himself as some sort of outsider to the political scene. Which demonstrates that people in the U.S. are real suckers for this Mr. Smith Goes to Washington myth, even though Arnie was certainly no political outsider by any stretch. That’s a triumph of image engineering on Arnie’s part, but I see it as more an indictment on the shallowness of the U.S.'s political debate rather than anything to do with Hollywood.
Yeah, and we all know how much the Washington insiders care about the common working man. I don’t want to hijack this thread, but the there’s a very good reason why the “political outsider” idea sells. The current crop of insiders are a bunch of useless jerk-offs.
As for the OP, I’m with The Gaspode. Some members of the Hollywood crowd like to pretend that they’re cutting edge radicals, but at the end of the day the list of winners is suspiciously non-controversial.
I agree with you on Crash, but my take on Good Night and Good Luck was that it used the McCarthy angle as a commentary on the current political climate, rahter than just as a history lesson.
Also, a slight hijack to address something mentioned a couple times earlier in the thread: The Player was made by Robert Altman, not Tim Robbins.
What does this have to do with anything? Are you under some sort of misapprehension that Arnie is not a political insider, or that he cares about the “common working man”? Taking for granted (for the moment) the concept that you can meaningfully define “political insider” and “political outsider”, and that it’s possible to elect a “political outsider”.
I’d say you’re not paying attention. If I hear “Oprah says…” One more time…
I just used the Scientology as an example. My point was that people will see Tom Cruise espousing Sceintology, or Pamela Anderson spouting off about PETA and transfer these views to all Californians. It happens with a fair amount of predictability. “Oh, you crazy Californians. You really are out of touch, aren’t you?”
Yes, and the reason that ticked me off was because it totally reinforced the above belief of everyone outside of California that we’re not all that bright.
Did you see Million Dollar Baby? It was rife with contemporary social and political issues. I certainly don’t think “everyone could be a winner” applies to this one.
You’re probably right. I don’t know a ton about such things - people I know don’t mostly watch Oprah. And I suppose the phenomenon of people like Dr. Phil whose celebrity is entirely based upon giving people advice (in this case, bad advice) is a related issue.
Ahh. I think I misunderstood you. If you’re saying that wacko celebrities make the rest of California look bad to those of us outside the state, that’s probably true.
ZACTLY. On both counts.
I realize most people claim they don’t watch Oprah or Dr. Phil, but Christ, those book sales and tv ratings are coming from somewhere, y’know? match.com even hired the jerk (Dr. Phil). It’s depressing to think people believe all their problems can be solved in 15 minutes on national television. What’s even worse is that those two particular people have had that reinforce by such a huge audience, they now believe it themselves.
The fact that we hired Arnie and expected anything beyond sound bites and him acting like an action hero against the bad people that disagree with him would crack me up if it weren’t so pitiful. We whine that we’re not taken seriously, and then we elect that moron. You just don’t get quality irony like that anymore.
I did.
And I don’t think so. “everyone could be a winner” is a common theme in movies. The average person trying to beat the odds (and sometimes succeding). As for contemporary social and political issues… nah. Being out of luck, poor and washed up is certainly not something unique for the times we live right now.
If the major movie studios wanted to do something edgy, they could. When I read through the list of nominations, there were a few titles that popped up and made me think they were more deserving, at least if we’re talking about edge. Rocky beat Taxi Driver, All the Presídent’s Men and Network. And there are movies, some with fairly wide release , that take a serious look on the U.S. (and other countries in Western society too). But they are not up for Oscars. During the more radical 70’s they could at least get a nom nod, but not anymore.
The industry is tired of catching heat from politicians and different interest groups and stay away from anything that might create controversy. Brokeback is not edgy and while crash dared to say that racism still exists (big surprise :rolleyes:), it did it in a ham handed way.
The Constant Gardener did try, but it wasn’t a U.S. production and the love story took too much space. A shame. It could’ve been great.
Just a brief hijack: I knew DeNiro put on weight for the role, but I was shocked to learn recently that it was 56 pounds! To play a middleweight (Under 160 pounds)? I look at DeNiro in that movie, and I think, “That guy is supposed to be five pounds lighter than I am.” Thanks, Bob.
DeNiro put on weight for the portrayal of the post-career LaMotta (after training up as a boxer), with his belly hanging out of his pants. The physical transformation–and the extent to which DeNiro was willing to go to effect it–was impressive, but the performance was what really made the movie. Robert DeNiro is literally unrecognizable in either appearance or manner.
Trivia note: Joe Pesci kicks the crap out of a mob character played by Frank Vincent in Raging Bull. He does the same thing in Goodfellas. Reportedly, both times he broke Vincent’s ribs. In Casino, Vincent gets to turn the tables and injured Pesci (the cornfield scene).
Stranger
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.
I thought the whole “pulling the plug” issue was pretty relevent.
I don’t know. It might have been relevant in the early 90s, when the whole debate really got going (Kervorkian, Final Exit, etc.), but by the time Million Dollar baby came out, the issue had been dealt with at least half-a-dozen times on E/R alone.
The fact that an issue has been dealt with previously doesn’t always mean it’s not relevant. While it’s true whole “right-to-die” storyline of Million Dollar Baby had been used before (e.g., in Whose Life Is It Anyway?), it was still a hot topic mainly because the timing of film’s release inadvertantly coincided with the Terry Schiavo controversy.
Yes, Eastwood didn’t know that when he set out to do the film. He’s a very, very good film maker, but he’s not exactly edgy or controversial. It was there because it was good drama, not to challenge any beliefs (which is the topic of the thread).