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.
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.
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.
And while I agree in some part with Sam, I’d like to know what he means by this:
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.
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?
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.
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.
(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.)
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.
You can stretch suspension of disbelief only so far.
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.
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?