The only explanation I can come up with to explain those who deny Hollywood’s left-wing agenda is that they want to remain on the “Above the Line” cocktail party invite list. Either that or they are lying to themselves, and are nothing more than useful idiots to left-wing ideologues.
The Washington Post recently reported on Hollywood’s turn toward films promoting spiritual themes. The litany of spiritual themed movies includes Avatar, The Road, The Invention of Lying, The Lovely Bones, The Blind Side, The Book of Eli, Legion, and The Last Station. While many might pause at the “spirituality” the Dream Factory promotes in some of these films, I was struck by this opening quote from Greg Wright, editor at HollywoodJesus.com:
“The more paranoid elements of our culture tend to think Hollywood has a proactive agenda, that producers have a grand scheme to use movies to shape the thinking of audiences. I don’t subscribe to that school. I believe that Hollywood gives audiences what audiences want to see. If people don’t want to see movies with certain messages, they won’t buy tickets. So if there’s a trend out there, it’s one reflecting what people are already thinking and feeling.” [Emphasis added]
Has Mr. Wright been so long in Hollywood that he is no longer aware of the waters within which he swims? Declaring that Hollywood does not have “a proactive agenda” and does not want “to shape the thinking of audiences” is like declaring MSNBC is an unbiased news source and Chris Matthews does not care if Pres. Obama is a grand success as POTUS.
Hollywood only gives people what they want? How then, does Mr. Wright explain film after film attacking American motives in the Iraqi front of the war against Islamo-nazism, which the American public nearly uniformly rejected? Theaters were inundated with left-wing, anti-war films: Redacted, In the Valley of Ellah, Lions for Lambs, The Manchurian Candidate 2004 remake, Battle for Haditha, and Syriana, just to name a few. Almost across the board, these projects were financial failures, and yet Hollywood kept producing them.
Maybe Mr. Wright has spent so much time in prayer that he’s missed Hollywood’s embrace of Michael Moore and his anti-American diatribes or Al Gore and his global warming hysteria. The Academy gave Oscars to these two men whose films were built on lies, fabrications and manipulated interviews.
As John Nolte noted, at BigHollywood.com, in a blistering take down of another Hollywood defender, “I guess five self-mocking titles over nearly two decades somehow trumps the full court press of 15 or so (and counting) anti-war movies we’ve seen in just two years “mocking” our country and, most unforgivably, those who defend it. “
Hollywood does not have “a proactive agenda” or wish “to shape the thinking of audiences?” What planet is Greg Wright living on?
James Cameron has effectively stated that he was not attempting to be subtle with Avatar’s messages:
[T]here’s a conscious attempt to evoke even Vietnam era imagery, with the way the guys jump off the helicopters and so on. It’s a way of connecting a thread through history. I take that thread farther back, and I sure like to have a little historical memory that goes back farther than that to the 17th, 16th centuries and how the Europeans pretty much took over South, Central and North America and displaced and marginalised the indigenous peoples there. … We had a tendency to just take what we want without asking, as Jake says. … There’s a sense of entitlement – we’re here, we’re big, we’ve got the guns, we’ve got the technology, we’ve got the brains, therefore we’re entitled to every damn thing on this planet. And that’s not how it works, and we’re going to find out the hard way if we don’t wise up and start seeking a life that’s in balance with the natural cycles of life on Earth.”[Emphasis added]
According to Mr. Wright this does not encapsulate “a proactive agenda,” nor is Cameron attempting to “to shape the thinking of audiences.” And if you disagree then you are simply among the “more paranoid elements of our culture.”
Then count me among the paranoid. Hollywood has a very specific, proactive, left-wing agenda. Denying this fact surrenders the culture to the Left and prohibits the creation of a culture of liberty. I am befuddled as to why a confessed Christian would engage in this kind of behavior, though I am not surprised. It takes a very strong personality to resist Hollywood’s pressure to conform.
Strong personalities are desperately needed in the Cultural Influence Professions during these times. We cannot expect to produce a population that honors and builds respect for liberty and personal responsibility as long as we deny the obvious. The more creators who respect and honor America’s foundational values retreat from the entertainment professions, the more the agenda of men and women like James Cameron, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Barbara Streisand, etc. will dominate our culture.
Wow!! What a conversation! Well, I think all of you have some points that make sense. As a screenwriter, I understand the concept that films are ultimately made by “group think” mentality. And the quicker a screenwriter succumbs to that program, the quicker he or she get films made. Fundamentally, any script gets hammered and sawed by the producers, the directors, the studios, even the actors on the set. We even have a name for the process: monsterization. It’s when a script starts out one way and by the time it appears on the silver screen, it’s a “monster” version of the original – a 2-hour Frankenstein. I guess if you were going to try to put a label on any leftist conspiracy, that would be their meeting room.
But how does that really break down? I think we all agree that there are more liberal folks in Hollywood than conservatives, so does that indicate a conspiracy? I think Greg has it right – it’s probably just a group of like-minded people (liberals) talking about what they believe and sharing their worldviews. Does that LOOK like a conspiracy? Absolutely – especially when your children are watching their films and you’re concerned about what worldview is being socked away into their little brains. It seems we have two camps in Hollywood – one camp that is deliberately pushing an agenda (the Moore’s and Gore’s) and another camp that is simply sharing the way they view the world through art. Yes, there’s an agenda and no, there’s not.
And then there’s the third camp creeping in on the scene. If you want to talk about agendas, point the finger at Christians. More than any other group, the Christian filmmakers are working hard to get family-friendly stuff produced. I’m not complaining at all, because I’d like to see more of it myself. But there is no doubt whatsoever that Christians are trying to present either good morals or Jesus Christ in their films (and sometimes both). The agenda is clear. Out with the bad, in with the good. And they are scraping and leveraging to figure out how to get their films produced in Hollywood.
So when you’re assessing whether the culture is shaping movies or movies are shaping culture, the answer is yes. Both the left and the right are working hard to get their voices heard. And people who pay their $9 are listening and changing their minds about life because of what they hear and see on screen. This seems to be the nature of humanity – whether we are changed by words, books, radio or film. Film is just another venue for ideological exchange.
Lastly, I doubt Greg would ever imply that Jesus makes everyone unhappy. I think maybe he was trying to say that Hollywood’s liberals rub the Christians, and Jesus rubs the liberals, so everyone is unhappy with something. Sorry if I’m wrong on this one. That’s just the way it read to me.
Fun reading. Thanks guys!
Regarding what seems to be a large amount of allusion to a culture war of sorts:
If there is any chance of winning the “culture war” (if you subscribe to the belief that something like that even exists and is a matter of winning or losing) then it seems we are well on the road to losing simply by taking so much time to point out what the other group is trying to do to us rather than what we ourselves should be doing. To point fingers back and forth and say the Hollywood left is trying to influence the masses to do this or the Christian right is trying to influence the masses to do that simply enlarges the chasm that already exists between the two groups. No one is denying that there are differences in what people believe or how they see the world (as everyone sees the world differently), but I’m curious as to why we are so reactionary when it seems like someone is trying to influence us. Why not, instead (as Hollywoodjesus does) take one of the many cultural influences present in the world (film) and start a conversation on the positive side? Spirituality and Christianity are more present in the world than I believe we like to think sometimes. It seems as though Hollywoodjesus has actually achieved its purpose of creating conversation as evidenced by the above exchange. I believe the best chance we have of influencing the people around us and the world as a whole is not by pointing (saying you believe, you believe, you believe) but by talking, conversing, and discussing: the mutual exchange of ideas.
Where does the younger generation weigh in on this? Do young twenty-somethings at the outset of their careers in what could be in Hollywood or not seem more likely to create conversation rather than enhance what is already a sizeable rift? Or am I just wishful thinking…
Greg,
Whether you use the term or not does not invalidate its accuracy as a general description of a segment of society culture. It just shows a certain obtuseness on your part.
I reject Bergman’s description of how audiences should approach film. In no other art form would any serious person accept this. No one would take “putting aside will and intellect” seriously if it were novels, the visual arts, plays, poetry, music, etc. under discussion. But because now we talking about flickering images on a screen suddenly we’re supposed to put aside “will and intellect.” It’s absurd on its face.
In fact, I’d assert that your website, one that is full of people critiquing movies, music, books, comics, etc., that is, people using their intellect to examine the quality and messages in these mediums, is proof of that.
Just because Bergman said it doesn’t make it so.
How is refusing to release “Path to 9/11” as a DVD, and kowtowing to political pressure (Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, Debbie Stabenow and Byron Dorgen signed a letter on behalf of ALL Democrats threatening ABC’s license to broadcast if the network allowed “this programming to proceed as planned.”), and forcing its creators to change the content in any way, shape or form analogous to Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” or even the controversy that erupted over CBS’s “The Reagans?” Last time I checked Moore’s “documentary” was readily available on DVD, and no one forced Moore to tone down his criticism of Bush or else the project would be shut down. Provide the documentation proving Republicans politicians threatened CBS’s license to broadcast.
The Reagans was “canceled?” That is only part of story. Here is CBS statement on the decision to move it from a free broadcast network to pay cable:
“CBS will not broadcast THE REAGANS on November 16 and 18. This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script.
“Although the mini-series features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience. Subsequent edits that we considered did not address those concerns.
“A free broadcast network, available to all over the public airwaves, has different standards than media the public must pay to view. We do, however, recognize and respect the filmmakers’ right to have their voice heard and their film seen. As such, we have reached an agreement to license the exhibition rights for the film to Showtime, a subscriber-based, pay-cable network. We believe this is a solution that benefits everyone involved.” Emphasis added.
Furthermore, no one at Viacom blocked The Reagans from DVD release. Not true with Disney/ABC. So anyone interested in a fictional film portraying Ronald Reagan as a bigoted, amiable dunce and suffering from Alzheimer’s disease while in White House, can get their fill of Mr. Streisand as America’s 40th President. It is readily available on DVD to anyone who might have missed its original airing.
Finally, as an Orthodox Christian, I’m very put off by your creating some kind of equivalence between Hollywood and Christ: “Hollywood. Jesus. Makes everyone unhappy.” That fact, that you assert that Christ “makes everyone unhappy” is rather odd theology, given the Christian emphasis on Joy. But I guess that’s what happens when one surrenders his will and intellect to the flickering images on the big screen inside the “church of the masses.”
“When we experience a film, we consciously prime ourselves for illusion. Putting aside will and intellect, we make way for it in our imagination. The sequence of pictures plays directly on our feelings.” Ingmar Bergman, Introduction to Four Screenplays, 1960.
It’s not that you “should become a mindless sponge” — it’s that, to some extent, you can’t help it because of the power of the art.
It’s the power that Cameron depends on to achieve his ends with Avatar. Pretty simple stuff.
It’s funny that I can affirm the attempt to influence and control thought — and specific instances where there’s no question filmmakers have that in mind (Michael Moore, anyone?) — but if I don’t subscribe to the vague conception of a Hollywood Left then I’m in some kind of denial.
The Path to 9/11 is a counterpoint to what happened with Fahrenheit 9/11, Daniel. The Reagan TV doc was scrubbed, too. All are self-explanatory. Parties get offended, pressure comes to bear. Marketing types make calls about what will sell best, given the circumstances. Cuts both ways. (If the conservative influence were entirely powerless, I’d pretty much have to concede the theory, of course.)
And no, you won’t find me using the term “Christian Right” in any meaningful way, either. It’s a convenient label used by the left to discredit specific individuals as irrelevant.
Does that make me a Christian Right denier, too? Cool. I love being caught in the middle.
Hollywood.
Jesus.
Make everyone unhappy.
See ya, guys. Been fun, if a bit like chasing tails. I’ll check back in to answer specific questions, or you can email me (I’m pretty easy to track down online) but I really don’t have anything to add.
You can’t really be serious with this:
“Every time I speak publicly on film, I reference Bergman’s idea that audiences surrender the will and intellect when they buy a ticket.”
Surrender the will and intellect?!? I’ll be honest to not being familiar with the context in which Bergman made that assertion.
In other words, when I buy a ticket I should become nothing more than a mindless sponge to absorb whatever is about to happen on screen? I pray that is a joke. If not, and I don’t care how great a filmmaker you believe Bergman to be, that is the most idiotic assertion I have ever heard anyone make.
If you play around with Cameron’s qoute, you can see it as the lamentation of a conservative artist directed at Hollywood’s lock-step liberals:
“There’s a sense of[LIBERAL/LEFTTIST] entitlement – [WE’VE BEEN HERE AND IN CONTROL FOR A LONG TIME], we’re big, we’ve got the [MONEY],we’ve got the technology, we’ve got the brains[?], therefore we’re entitled to every damn thing on this planet. And that’s not how it works, and we’re going to find out the hard way if we don’t wise up and start seeking a [CULTURAL] life that’s in balance with the natural cycles of [DIVERSE WORLDVIEWS] on Earth.”
OK, Greg, if there is no “Hollywood Left” then please explain the treatment Cyrus Nowrasteh received over his mini-series “The Path to 9/11.” The Disney/ABC acquiesced to political pressure from the Left and forced Nowrasteh to cut scenes left-wing politicians didn’t like.
And explain why that same company refuses to release an incredibly popular, widely watched mini-series for public consumption in DVD, a release that would very likely reap massive financial gain.
No Hollywood Left? I guess it is just a matter of differing “artistic visions.”
If there’s no such thing as the “Hollywood Left,” then I guess we can dispense with the “Christian Right,” “European Socialist,” and any other general reference to a group with a people with a particular worldview as well.
Come on, Greg, now you’re just being obtuse.
Greg, the “Hollywood Left” isn’t an organization, for gosh sakes. No more than when leftists hiss out the words “religious right.” I’m curious as to why whenever we criticize the dominance of leftist thought you read it as us meaning some kind of organized conspiracy? I have no problem with “organic effect of individual intent,” but when 90% of those individuals are leftist thugs, Houston, we have a problem.
BTW: Every time I speak publicly on film, I reference Bergman’s idea that audiences surrender the will and intellect when they buy a ticket. So I’m not the guy who thinks there’s no “attempt to influence our thinking on important social issues.”
Hollywood films are the crack cocaine of art, delivering what’s best about the constituent forms in as easily digestible and efficient a form as possible. It’s thrilling — and dangerous.
No, Daniel — I very clearly see individual acts of intent and can address them as such. My gosh, I’m not a ninny.
But the “Hollywood Left”: where does that group meet, pray tell? Who’s a member? How did they get capitalized? What’s their charter?
If these guys are all getting together and planning things out the way we get textiles pre-programmed for us (and where’s the liberty in that?) I’m all for finding that out. But the effect we both recognize is a pretty organic effect of individual intent.
Clearly, I have some problem with words because I just don’t seem to be making any sense.
Greg,
If intent matters, then I refer back to the Cameron quote in the original post:
“There’s a sense of entitlement – we’re here, we’re big, we’ve got the guns, we’ve got the technology, we’ve got the brains, therefore we’re entitled to every damn thing on this planet. And that’s not how it works, and we’re going to find out the hard way if we don’t wise up and start seeking a life that’s in balance with the natural cycles of life on Earth.”
Cameron is reflecting the dominant Hollywood worldview and he and everyone associated with his film fully intend that everyone who sees it to “wise up.” I understand that you see it as simply an expression of “artistic vision,” but a lot of others, who are in no way paranoid, see it has the Hollywood attempt to influence our thinking on important social issues so that we conform with them.
Mike, in general I agree that “getting caught up in semantics (agenda or conspiracy or whatever) or motives is beside the point” — when you’re talking about effects.
However, I was slammed for talking about the paranoia of people who believe “that producers have a grand scheme” to promote a uniform way of thinking. That addresses intent, a very different thing; and I’m old-school enough to think that intent matters, no just effects.
Greg, your latest comment actually points out a typo in the original post. I meant an either or comparison: Either one wants to maintain the networking and social contacts so one adopts the dominant worldview in Hollywood OR one does not mimic that worldview, but through one’s action allows that worldview to maintain dominance.
I don’t believe you’re a man of the Left, but the position you take, that there is no effort by the Hollywood Left to influence people’s thinking on important social issues, allows producers, directors, actors, writers, etc. to maintain the left-wing mono-culture that currently exists in entertainment and other Cultural Influence Professions.
While some more strident voices may want you to conform, that is not my position. Nor is it the position of those responsible for this website. As I noted above, we might not agree on the broader theme that began this thread, but we can have a civil discussion, air our difference, and at the end of the day (hopefully) share an adult beverage and depart better acquainted, if not friends.
Were this discussion taking place in a writers’ room, teachers’ lounge, or mainstream media editorial office I believe that the person presenting the position Mike and I are putting forward will find himself persona non grata and struggling to keep his job. The left-wing dominance of these professions is fostering a culture of conformity and passivity in the face of groupthink not a culture of liberty.
Greg, I believe that is a distinction without a difference. I don’t care what these people’s motives are, or if there is any grand conspiracy to indoctrinate people. It’s irrelevant. What matters is that peoples’ worldviews and beliefs are reflected in their art. The left’s dominance in the CIPs is harmful to American culture, period. “Grand scheme” or groupthink, whatever dynamic is at work, it just doesn’t matter.
And you seem a bit overly sensitive here. It’s not odd at all. Liberty doesn’t mean everyone agrees and says nice things all the time. We’re having a debate, a very enjoyable and necessary one. I think you are in error in some of your assessment, you think I am. We talk. Just because we disagree and make points to engage, this is pressure to conform? Come on. That sounds more reactive than accurate. Everything here has been respectful, and it always is, unlike you’ll find on many angry lefty blogs.
“Useful Idiot” is a term with historical meaning, as I’m sure you know. The intellectuals who denied or ignored Stalin’s brutality contributed to it. This clearly doesn’t apply to you, because you acknowledge the hegemony of the left in Hollywood. I think getting caught up in semantics (agenda or conspiracy or whatever) or motives is beside the point.
For those of us on the right, Hollywood is a problem that needs to be addressed. Until there are more conservatives and libertarians and classical liberals, more people of religious faith who believe in traditional values in Hollywood involved in every area of making movies and entertainment that problem will continue. Those who deny it is a problem, in my book, could be considered “useful idiots.”
Michael, I really don’t disagree with anything you say. My point throughout this discussion has simply been that there’s a difference between saying “people of the left overwhelmingly dominate these professions” (your words, with which I agree, and echo in similar terms) and saying that “producers have a grand scheme to use movies to shape the thinking of audiences” (my words, from the originally quoted article).
From what I’ve seen (which is quite a bit) there is no grand scheme. What I have seen is groupthink from an excessively isolated group of like-minded people. That’s quite a different thing.
I have been concerned here that I have at least temporarily become confused with a “lefty” (your word, not necessarily applied to me) who “want[s] to remain on the ‘Above the Line’ cocktail party invite list… and [is] nothing more than [a] useful idiot to left-wing ideologues” (Daniel’s original description) — simply because I employed the word “paranoid.”
I’ve got to say that my reception here has felt equally true to your words: “whenever you have a social situation where a large majority of people think a certain way, you will likely have certain pressure to conformity.”
And that’s okay; it’s Daniel’s house. But it is really odd, because this entire blog is about Liberty.
Daniel uses the phrase, “Cultural Influence Professions,” (CIPs) which I take to mean broadly speaking, Hollywood and entertainment, media and journalism, and education and academia. This is a phrase I believe I coined, although I got the idea from an American Thinker article back in Dec. of 2006. You could say culture is everything in a society, which is true, but my focus is on how these certain professions have a daily influence on the worldview and beliefs of the American people.
Regardless what people like Mr. Wright might say, people of the left overwhelmingly dominate these professions. I’m just speaking numerically. Who knows what the actual numbers are. Let’s just pick some percentages out of the air, say 80/20 left/right. Of course it’s much higher in some areas, like social science departments of universities, where it could be 99/1. Whatever the numbers are, the liberal-left has almost complete hegemony over these professions.
Mr. Wright, this has implications regardless of the particular social, psychological or group dynamics at play. Whenever those on the right talk about bias in these professions, the lefties pooh pooh them, and in many cases incredulously mock them. They are so convinced of their grand good intentions that they really believe anyone on the right who criticizes them is “paranoid,” among other epithets they throw around.
Because of fallen human nature, whenever you have a social situation where a large majority of people think a certain way, you will likely have certain pressure to conformity. It’s natural, even if wrong. But the problem in these professions is that this overwhelming majority is made up of people with the pernicious mindset of leftist beliefs, which are at war with a true culture of liberty and personal responsibility.
It goes back to the American and French Revolutions; the former bequeathed liberty, the latter totalitarianism and misery. The progressive movement of that late 19th and early 20th Centuries continued the war against liberty and personal responsibility by those who believe elites know better than the common man, and that the state is a force for the good of those who do not know any better, not to mention socialism and communism. The left’s totalitarian anti-liberty impulse is everywhere apparent in the CIPs with those who have eyes to see. Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to apply to you.
The right has abdicated the CIPs to the left over the last 50 years, and the cultural degradation that has followed is as predictable as it is tragic. That has to change if for no other reason than to bring some semblance of balance back to these professions, and it will. But as we see most clearly in academia, the left will not give up its control easily, even as they deny it exists.
Greg,
I’m grateful for the exchange. I’m not familiar with White’s work. I don’t take it as an insult and will look him up, thank you for the tip.
I had a feeling we probably agree on more things than disagree, and again am thankful for the dialog. Nothing like a little ‘juice’ to get things going, eh? 🙂
Daniel
RES: “by nature” was a poor choice of words on my part. I am speaking of my experience of business and art, both of which are extensive (and subjective), not their definitions.
By and large, I find that the significant majority of people drawn to careers in business are conservative in their politics, and that the significant majority of people for whom art is their livelihood are liberal in their politics.
Are business professionals in Hollywood, as a whole, more liberal than their counterparts in, say, the aerospace or medical industries? In my experience, yes. So it’s not accurate, I don’t think, to say that the business of Hollywood is as conservative in its values as in business as a whole.
As you note, “Finance is conservative only in the sense that the financier seeks to conserve or increase wealth.” And that’s the sense I’m talking about. Hollywood cannot be self-perpetuating if it ignores market dynamics and public tastes by taking excessive risks.
So, I believe one way to change Hollywood is to change public taste. Another is to change the hearts of people in Hollywood, by loving them.
Thanks for the links, Daniel. It’s interesting that our taste in films runs so similar while our ways of talking about the films, filmmakers, and industries that we don’t like run so contrary.
I’d even go so far as to say that your philosophy of filmic art and the cultural role that it plays syncs pretty well with that of the secular critic with whose philosophy (though not whose politics) I agree most, Armond White. (If you’re familiar with White’s work, I hope you don’t take that as an insult. It’s not intended as such, at all.)
And I certainly don’t quibble with the examples of execrable attitudes which you cite. One of the major problems with Liberalism, as a whole, is its tendency toward superiority and disdain.
So… Do studios make films that lose money? Yes. Do they make and distribute films which they know (or at least expect) will lose money? Yes. Does the industry congratulate itself over this fact, as evidence that their priorities and politics are in the “right” place? Yes, of course. And they use the income from their tentpole, broad-appeal films (the ones we pay to see) to further that work. But execs and studios which do that as a matter of course, and at the expense of sound marketing principles, don’t last long.
So I think that’s a fine place to leave things. The industry does indeed suffer myriad problems, none of which I deny nor defend. They just don’t surprise me, given the people involved, nor do they irk me to they extent they irk you.
My hope is that the culture at large begins to see through the self-perpetuating illusory stranglehold that Hollywood has on our sensibilities — both pro and con. And I have nothing but pity and compassion on miserable, discontented, disdainful people no matter where they live or in which industry they work. Life can be so much better.
Greg,
HJ is a fantastic idea. It’s too bad it’s being run by someone as obtuse as you.
Who wanted to see any of the crap anti-American movies that have come out recently beside “Avatar”? That’s right. Nobody.
So all these anti-American movies get financed the past 5 years and lose lots of money. How is it that even after the anti-American movies started to establish a trend of losing money did the movies keep getting financed?
I dispute a definition of Art which presumes Art is bound to push back against boundaries. In the past Art has reinforced social mores and values far more often that it has “push[ed] back against whatever boundaries” it perceives. The Merriam-Webster definition which seems most appropriate is “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects” — which eschews polemical purpose of any sort as irrelevant to Art.
By nature, Finance nor Art are conservative or liberal — such arguments express a priori assumptions which cannot stand examination except as reflection of thoughtless prejudice. To so define these concepts is to create false boundaries to perception. Finance is conservative only in the sense that the financier seeks to conserve or increase wealth; it offers nothing to presume a role for limited powers of the government and indeed can be historically demonstrated to have endorsed increased powers of the state. Equally, Art which espouses a political viewpoint is propaganda and to argue it is by nature Liberal is to ignore the works of such disparate filmmakers as Griffith (Birth of a Nation), Riefenstahl (Triumph des Willens) and Eisenstein (The battleship Potemkin”.)
Paranoia is a state of clinical derangement, so whether or not the term is pejorative seems moot.
Since we’re agreed on greater engagement not less by people with all kinds of ideas and opinions, then it strikes me that you’d agree that nothing but opprobrium should be heaped on folks in the industry, like Nora Ephron, who publicly states, without fear of condemnation, that she effectively endorses a blacklist against conservatives and evangelical Christians in Hollywood. That is a despicable attitude and something with which those who appreciate the art of filmmaking should distance themselves. Instead she’s the toast of the town, feted by that so-called conservative money to which you point.
I think I have adequately responded to the charge that I have a problem with art, but I’d ask that you look at this, this, this or this and tell me that I have a problem with art. I would stand by the charge that I have problem with propaganda, which is what I see in a lot of films these days, and is perhaps a discussion for another thread.
Can I not express and be taken at my word regarding my attitude toward what filmmakers produce versus them as people? The fact that many filmmakers, and many on the Left in general, do not express the same charity toward me because of my worldview does not mean that I am wrong. I would again note Ephron’s own words as her attitude toward me as person with certain ideas. And if that’s not enough, I’d suggest reading Harry Stein’s latest book I Can’t Believe I’m Sitting Next to a Republican.
Based on behavior, the fact that I give money to see the products of people with whom I disagree politically should be enough to show my attitude towards these individuals qua individuals. I know that J.J. Abrams, Morgan Freeman, Ron Howard are 180 degrees from me ideologically, but that doesn’t keep me from spending hard earned money to see their work. And I firmly believe that the likes of Oliver Stone, Nora Ephron, Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon, etc. wouldn’t piss on me if I was fire if they knew my political views. Yet, even though I firmly believe this, I will still see their work as creative talents if I think it is worth my time and money.
Speaking of money: I really do not understand the trope that money equals conservative. If finance is conservative, then please explain the dozens of anti-Iraq war flops, one piled on after another. Many of these projects being rushed into production in order to keep them “timely.” There is nothing conservative about the millions and millions of dollars spent when past performance should have shown them to have no bankable value, despite the stars attached to them. It was all done to score political points and persuade public opinion. In other words, all that money was spent to promote an agenda through propaganda not art.
Finally, people don’t “just HAPPEN” to lean this way or that. They learn this stuff from parents, friends, teachers, pastors, and even from television, movies, music, plays, and journalism. It is a serious problem that so many from the Right have abandoned those latter Cultural Influence Professions in order to create their own little cultural ghettos. The result has been a nearly ideologically uniform entertainment, news and education establishment. We should not be dismissing this reality as inconsequential or the ravings of the paranoid. You may not view the near uniformity of opinion among the Hollywood Jesus writers, using it as a microcosm of the entertainment industry, as a problem, but I do. Not as a problem to “fix” by making it uniform in the other direction. Rather as a clear diagnosis of what the shape of things are today in contrast to what a robust culture of liberty and personal responsibility ought to look. It strikes me that you believe there this robust culture exists, which seems to be where our fundamental difference lies. You acknowledge that Hollywood Jesus is dominated by people with whom you disagree, but it strikes me that you still believe this near uniformity “just HAPPENS” and isn’t a problem. I disagree.
When the gatekeepers all think alike, then what gets through the gate is what they want to get through. That is not good for a healthy culture. Sure one can point to a movie here or there that slips over the fence, but these are a few lone individuals in a flood of bodies that the gatekeepers let through.
As I have noted already, I want more people creating movies, television, plays, music, visual art, and fiction. These new artists must know what they are facing in the industry, and those in the industry, who profess openness and tolerance while exhibiting none of those qualities, must be challenged. We fail on both those points if we deny the entertainment industry’s demand for left-wing ideological conformity.
There are are filmmakers, screenwriters, and actors out there with conservative and orthodox Christian attitudes. I’ve met some of them in Seattle, and they tell me the same thing over and over again. They have to keep their opinions to themselves in order to find and keep working. I know political cartoonists who use a pseudonym in their work because their day jobs in the advertising business would disappear if people knew who they were. Those on the other side of the aisle have not such problem. We don’t do these individuals who differ from the prevailing zeitgeist, people who are struggling to bring new ideas and artwork to the public, any favors by denying their experiences or dismissing what they report as the ravings of the paranoid.
Hi, Daniel. If you’ll take Hollywood Jesus itself as a microcosm of Hollywood — a collection of individuals which, if taken as a whole, appears to lean to the left by virtue of the fact that those who take the time to be involved in such things HAPPEN to lean that way individually — then you won’t be surprised to find that I, as the managing editor, also disagree with a good deal of what’s written there.
Why? Because it’s not a monolith. Neither is Hollywood entertainment.
I really do think you have a problem with art — as art. You say “I don’t ‘loathe’ filmmakers. I loath the agenda they are pushing” and yet say “many prominent A-list talents … despise my values and therefore despise me.” Which is it? Your language tends to indicate that you believe the latter more than the former.
Art is not bound to push any specific political or ideologic agenda — hence the heinous nature of the Obama administration’s attempts to co-opt the NEA for propagandistic purposes.
If you like art, and artists, then you encourage them to express themselves and push back against whatever boundaries — conservative, liberal, or otherwise — that they perceive.
Even if the pushing back looks like “paranoia.” (Again, I consider myself a bit of a paranoid, so I don’t see that entirely as a pejorative, so I won’t apologize for use of the word.)
I’m in the minority amongst critics as a whole, but I believe strongly that the real power in Hollywood lies with the money men and not with the artists; so, yes: if a filmmaker has established a reputation as a bankable filmmaker, and he sits down at the table with a sound, bankable idea for a movie with conservative themes — such as John Lee Hancock with The Blind Side, or even Clint Eastwood with Gran Torino — then he gets listened to. I really do think you confuse the acts of individuals with an “industry that all but demands ideological conformity.” Finance is by nature conservative; art is by nature liberal. The industy is one which balances conservatism with liberalism in a very complex, competitive, and often self-defeating way.
So that’s my bias. I see lots of things wrong with Hollywood and its films — but my analysis of film history tells me that those very same things have ALWAYS been wrong with Hollywood. It’s not changing for the worse, or for the better. And it’s not likely to.
Major, major kudos, though, for challenging the bunker mentality. We 100% agree on that score!
Note to SeeingDouble: to which Kool-Aid do you refer? I can’t see that I’m defending anything.
And Hollywood Jesus was not started as Christian “counterpoint” to anything. It was started to have conversations with people where they were at — mostly, sitting in multiplex theater seats — talking with them about what they were seeing, and trying to introduce Jesus into the conversation in small ways. HJ then, by nature, LOVES theatrical releases!
Greg,
Thank you for the response. At the outset I want to state that I respect the work you are doing at HollywoodJesus.com, though I might disagree with some of what is written. I’d like to think that we want the same thing, that is a greater variety of stories told from folks with greater diversity of thought. If, however, we pretend that Hollywood, as it stands today, does not promote a very specific agenda then we won’t get that. What we will get is more of the same.
Maybe you were misquoted by the WaPo, maybe you weren’t, however, you didn’t qualify the “paranoid” comment. It was a blanket condemnation of anyone who did not see things your way. Perhaps next time you might be a bit more circumspect with how you refer to those with whom you might disagree.
I entirely agree that the future of filmmaking is in independent production and distribution. Thank God for the internet and new modes of video distribution that is democratizing the entertainment industry. One of my favorite films I’ve seen recently is an independent project, that I discovered through Netflix and which I believe never saw a theatrical release, was the film “Ink” by Jamin Wynans.
I would encourage you to take your own advise and “don’t presume to know things about people.” If my “problem” was with art, as you assert, then why would I encourage more people to get involved in the film production?
Nowhere did I assert that there is a “cabal of conspirators.” That is a common straw man argument made against anyone who points out the entertainment industry’s ideological conformity.
You must know that talent and hard work only go so far; film careers are built on networking and personal connections. It does not require a “cabal of conspirators” to marginalize those who have, what many in the LA Basin would consider, unpalatable ideas. Or perhaps you have missed the many personal stories of filmmakers and screenwriters sitting in a pitch meeting and having to listen to political diatribes with which they disagree, and knowing that if they dissented the response would be a smile, a “thanks for your time,” and that would be that – no return meeting, no return phone calls, nothing. You might want to take a look at some of the stuff Andrew Klavan, Roger L. Simon, Lionel Chetwynd, Robert J. Avrech, and others have written about their experiences in the industry.
Do you really think someone can walk into a pitch meeting and, in response to a personal inquiry by the man or woman behind the desk, start singing the praises of limited government, or, God forbid, Sarah Palin or George Bush before getting to the heart of story, and expect to get a call back? But engage in a political conversation in which one declares devotion to Barack Obama, attack “Bush’s war on free speech,” or promote Hugo Chavez’s “progressive” reforms and you will be warmly embraced.
I don’t “loathe” filmmakers. I loath the agenda they are pushing with the projects they produce and the political activity in which they engage. I do believe that many prominent A-list talents (Susan Sarandon, George Clooney, Dick Wolf, Oliver Stone, James Cameron, Danny Glover, etc.) despise my values and therefore despise me. I see it in the movies they make. A great example is Norah Ephron who has stated, at an Aspen Institute event several years ago, that she knows not a single conservative let alone evangelical Christian, she has no interest in wanting to know any of “those kinds of people,” and, most importantly, would refuse to work with anyone professing conservative values. Her comments did not elicit disdain from those on the stage with her or in the audience, but rather laughter and support. But maybe she doesn’t have an agenda either and is simply expressing her “artistic vision.”
I am not surprised by the assertion that Cameron’s quote does not represent wide spread and deeply felt beliefs of most of the entertainment industry. It is a common response. When Danny Glover, Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, etc. embrace Hugo Chavez they are simply individuals expressing their opinions. It has nothing to do with the broader culture in Hollywood. Cameron’s “artistic vision” received over half a billion dollars in financial support from the entertainment industry. You’ll forgive me if I dissent from the idea that his ideology is not one embraced by the majority of Hollywood decision makers.
My problem, as I attempted to make clear in the post, is with an entertainment industry that all but demands ideological conformity, and with those who dissent from that ideology but who retreat into intellectual ghettos. We should want more art, not less.
I hope this will lead to greater conversation, not less. I do not want to see folks hunkered down into bunker mentalities lobbying diatribes at each other. A culture of liberty and personal responsibility requires greater engagement across ideological lines not less. If only the entertainment industry could embrace this idea.
Ouch… Drink the Kool-Aid much, Greg?
Mr. Crandall didn’t say he loathed the filmmakers, just their onslaught of anti-American, anti-Christian messaging. When a group of people share the same viewpoints almost to a one, it needn’t be a conscious cabal of conspirators. But either way, the effect is the same. And if you don’t see that, what’s the point of your own website? Wasn’t it, in fact, formed to be a Christian counterpoint to something?
See Matthew 5:13, and think it through.
I didn’t say a little paranoia was a bad thing; and I’m a little paranoid myself.
I am also no fan of “Hollywood” entertainment, which you would know if you did your homework. The future of filmmaking is in independent filmmaking, now that the traditional distribution headlock is being thrown.
I do not live in Hollywood, and I don’t attend cocktail parties, much less get invited to them.
So here’s the big lesson for you: don’t presume to know things about people — and talk about them as if you do. It makes you look not only paranoid, but stupid.
Does Hollywood entertainment lean left? Of course it does — because the vast majority of artists in general do, no matter which community in which you live.
Your problem is not with Hollywood — it’s with art, and with people, which you confuse with institutions and industries, a fact which your own quote from Cameron confirms. Avatar is a film which reflects one man’s very personal vision, not the agenda of a cabal of conspirators.
Try getting to know a few of the filmmakers which you loathe, and see if they don’t in fact have some measure of sympathy for your values.