Chasing the Wind - Latest Comments in Hollywood vs. America

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Michael — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:10:35 -0000

Perhaps you don't read the same sources I do. There has been plenty of outrage against Hollywood depictions of morals.

I understood Vox. Scorn and ridicule of Judeo/Christian morality are fair game to Hollywood. Scorn of a gay and lesbian lifestyle in the movies? Just doesn't happen.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Jo — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:13:53 -0000

I didn't say there wasn't some outrage - I said it wasn't on the same scale.

And Vox, I have no idea what you're supposedly quoting at the end of your post. Although I am curious exactly when in western history Judaism hasn't been fair game for ridicule and scorn.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Vox — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:29:24 -0000

I had problems with "Sleepless in Seattle" and "You've Got Mail" - both films where one or both of the characters were in other relationships when they started on a new one. Apparently, in those instances, it was OK because Meg Ryan (and/or the story) was so 'cute'

I had a teenage boy tell me that, even though he had a girlfriend, he kept another girl as back up. I think it is movies like that that make it seem A) Bad to ever have a day or two between relationships (and therefore risk being alone) B) OK to carry on with multiple romantic/sexual partners.

These are the values we embrace in mass media and therefore transfer to our kids.

Sex is not only a fine thing to engage in at 12, it is expected. I'm not that old, but when I was in school, a girl having sex was not something to be proud of. Now they brag about it.

Adultery is fine because it feels good to ME.
Anything goes if it feels good to ME, I don't have to think about how it might affect my spouse/children/friends/community because I have a right to do whatever the heck I want.
Violence is fun.
Family is passÃ© and overrated.
It is never OK to defend yourself and your values.
Christianity and Judaism are fair game for ridicule and scorn.
Alternative religions/lifestyles are sacred and off limits for questioning or doubt.

Et cetera....

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Michael — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:52:26 -0000

But there was outrage. I had the same discussions with conservative Christians regarding "Bridges of Madison County."

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Jo — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:27:23 -0000

I'd agree with you, Vox, if there had been a tenth of the outrage at any other movie featuring an affair that there has been at Brokeback.

Tragic? Sure - it's a tragic movie. Tragic for everyone, not just the two lovers. Beautiful? Not sure where that comes from - not at all the impression I got from watching it.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Vox — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:24:24 -0000

One more point I would like to make (boy, this is a long comment thread) is that the story itself would be offensive to many people's values, whether the cowboys were gay or not.

The gist, as I understand it, is these two men have a long term relationship. Said relationship causes pain to their respective spouses and destroys their families. Somehow, we are supposed to think it is beautiful and tragic because they are gay - as opposed to selfish and self indulgent, which would be obvious (I hope) if they were heterosexual people in the same situation. Anyone pointing out that the characters and their actions are offensive is considered homophobic, when there are certainly other issues with the story that are questionable.

The same was true when the Methodists( ? ) were debating whether to ordain their first openly gay minister. Pointing out that he was hardly a good choice as a church leader because he abandoned his wife and children and was living in sin in a sexual relationship was homophobic, as if giving in to your urges and dismissing your vows is somehow OK if you are gay. He gets a free pass and you are not allowed to question his morality.

Brokeback Mountain doesn't have to be a quality film, or even tell a good story, because it involves selfish gay characters. Selfish heterosexual characters are handled on a case by case basis.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Sean — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:48:17 -0000

C'mon Jo, next you'll be telling us you don't believe in black helicopters either. :smile:

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Jo — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:39:35 -0000

Well, by "internal politics of the awarding body" I mean interpersonal and studio politics, not anything having to do with societal political leanings.

I just like seeing what everyone wears.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Vox — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:22:13 -0000

I'm with Michael on that one - "agenda", "internal politics of the awarding body", same thing.

And I am a big Oscar's lover. I have a party almost every year (last year being the exception) and it is always a big deal. However, knowing the "internal politics of the awarding body" I don't put much stock in their picks as actually being the best movie/performer/script of any given year. I do love the spectacle of it, though.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Jo — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:26:38 -0000

You probably could, if you follwed that sort of thing.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Michael — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:17:47 -0000

I can't tell the difference between "agenda" and "internal politics of the awarding body."

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Jo — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:04:35 -0000

I agree that the awards are often not about the quality of a particular product, but they aren't so much about an "agenda" as they are about the internal politics of the awarding body.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Vox — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 11:24:08 -0000

If constantly bombarding people with the message you want them to accept didn't work, we wouldn't have such a booming advertising business in this country.

I also think that the awards are given to 'legitimize' a product, whether it is music, movies or TV. Gina Davis just won an award for her "acting" in the unwatchable (and I tried, really I did) "Commander in Chief". Her acting is part of the problem with the program - it is just plain bad. However, by awarding her the establishment is giving the show and it's premise a bit of a credibilty boost. Same with "Fahrenheit 9/11", "Brokeback Mountain"....

If the products they were awarding were of a higher quality, I don't think there would be as much of an arguement for the conservatives to make. The fact that they give awards to products that are not only offensive, but often also poorly done, makes it fairly obvious that there is an agenda to be pushed.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Michael — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:11:40 -0000

Dwight, I respect your opinion and you make excellent points. Where we disagree is that Hollywood's "art" is not like a single controversial piece shown to a few, it's shown to millions at a time. In otherwords, it's mass-produced envelop-pushing art.

I also disagree that civilization is always better for it, especially when the art tramples over other's beliefs and treats them trivially. When that art exhibit a few years ago showing the Virgin Mary covered with dung, was civilization better for it? The movies that Hollywood awards lately also trample the sensibilities of faithful people with little or no regard to whether some people may find it offensive.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Dwight Silverman — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:05:34 -0000

Michael:

I think the notion that there aren't any cowboys who are gay is wishful thinking at best and naive at worst. ... or NFL players, firefighters, astronauts or any other of the "traditional heroes" out society holds up.

This overall discussion raises an interesting point, though, about art, artists and their politics.

Film is the dominant art of our time. Artists, in general, have always been liberal in the classic sense of the word -- open-minded, willing to experiment with ideas and themes, often in the name of a cause to seek change in the society. Then tend to encourage tolerance and want to push back at those parts of society they see as hemming them in.

Traditionally, that's how artists are. That's often a very different from the masses, who usually want to play it safe; don't want the boat rocked; and believe sticking to the status quo will keep the glue of society intact.

I think a lot of conservatives are concerned that film gives artists a giant megaphone to tout views that push harder at the envelope than they would like. But I do think that doesn't give much credit to the audience. People choose what art to partake; they mull it over, talk about it with their friends and family; accept or reject ideas as acceptable or not, then move on.

The leavening factor in all this, of course, is that films that push hard in one direction don't attract the mass audience. They garner attention from within the artist community, but the initial filter is indeed the box office. Thus, we'll always have both kinds of films -- "popcorn" movies, as critics call them, and the art films, in which artists explore unconventional ideas in creative ways.

And that's good. You want both. But I don't think it speaks to any great liberal agenda in Hollywood. What it is, is a continuation of a centuries old tradition -- it's what artists do, period. They push the envelope.

Overall, our civilization is better for that. The natural push-pull between the conventional and unconventional keeps us, in the long view, on track. It may get uncomfortably close one way or the other -- in the 1950s, the stifling feeling of enforced conformity; in the 1960s and 1970s, the spinning-out-of-control feeling as long-held norms were unraveled -- but in the end, we find the right path through the minefield ...

or Mindfield, if I may coin a pun!

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Jo — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:56:37 -0000

I think the boost was from the increase in theaters. Brokeback Mountain has had a very high per theater gross since it was released. As the number of theaters increases, that per theater number decreases, but it's still ahead of many current releases in that regard.

What I think the numbers show is that there is a very high interest in Brokeback among a very niche market.

You can compare it to Serenity - the sneak previews sold out in a matter of minutes, which could give the illusion of the movie being in high demand. But when it went to wide release, the per theater numbers dropped dramatically. Brokeback is the same way - there is a target market that is very eager to see the movie and so is finding its way to the limited release theaters, but I don't see it sustaining that kind of interest in wide release.

It will do well, though. I know plenty of women that will go see it just for the eye candy. I think it would have done even better if the movie had shown Heath and Jake topless more than Anne and Michelle.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Sean — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:23:03 -0000

BrokeBack Mountain slid past Glory Days (Highly recommended by me) by $10,000 nationwide on Thurs. to gain top movie sales status.

Think that the boost was from the awards?

We'll see how it does overall gross - vox populi

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Jo — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:26:15 -0000

When can I collect on that drink?

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Sean — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:00:29 -0000

Rather than digress into scholastic argument - can we agree that the Hollywood academy - more often than not - honors movies that are in conflict with traditional American belief?

Otherwise, I'll just let Jo's shrill words carry the day and let her words speak for herself. (I owe Jo a drink now.) :razz:

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Michael — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:47:33 -0000

Dwight, if the movie is only about dealing with intense emotions, then it's certainly possible to make the same point without including a subject that can be considered offensive to many. Would you have felt the same about the movie if you knew the trigger was something offensive to you?

Conservatives long ago seem to have given up protesting portayals of homosexuals on the periphery of movies, ala the gay neighbor. Then they sort of gave up protesting gays in clownish roles ala Rocky Horror and The Birdcage. Now that the heroes, especially traditional conservative heroes like cowboys, conservatives are reacting as though John Wayne himself was portrayed as gay.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Dwight Silverman — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:03:52 -0000

This is a fascinating and interesting discussion ... and I like how everyone is trying to keep it from careening into namecalling.

Michael: Regarding Brokeback Mountain as "degenerate" ... I think making such judgments without seeing it (or reading the original story) undercuts your credibility. I've not seen the movie, but my daughter has. A very good friend has read the book. From what they have told me, neither book nor film are about "being gay," but rather about dealing with intense emotions, feelings and ultimately acts that are not acceptable within certain norms.

Both works (the film closely follows the books) are about coming to grips with yourself and with expectations in the light of harsh realities. In a sense, it's an artistic mirror of the very discussion we're having in this post.

But because the trigger for the conflict is gayness, it's drawn the ire of people with a political agenda, or those who perceive that it is somehow promoting being gay. What the "art" is, is the author's expression of conflict between self and society. But too many folks cannot get past that -- all they see is the setup, not the overall theme.

Art often is not aimed at the masses. I think the makers of Brokeback Mountain never intended it to be seen by the same folks who'd go to see, say, Harry Potter. But they have taken a very delicate subject and treated it with intelligence and respect. I don't think that's "elite," that's just telling a story to make a point, which is very hard to do and do well. That's why it's being considered for awards.

What I'd suggest, Michael, is that you go see it -- look at it as in the interest of research, and self-education on a topic. Then come back here and tell us, once you have an informed opinion, if you think the whole point of it was to push the acceptance of being gay. You may still think that way, but at least you'll know what you're talking about when it comes to the source material.

Or, read the story, which is by the wonderful author Annie Proulx. Just reading anything by her is worth the effort.

I plan to do both.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Jo — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:39:40 -0000

Why, thank you. I'll be sure to follow your lead again next time.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Michael — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:19:21 -0000

Did you only want the answer if it was "yes"?

I thought Dwight's disagreement was polite and articulate.

But the awards...those aren't about appeal. Those are about filmaking -
about the art of it.

Pfft.

And your POV isn't disingenuous, nor can it be. Your argument was, however.

Pfft.

And I'm laughing hard at you trying to chastise me for using "belittling" language, given Sean's entire first post directed towards me.

I am not Sean. My name is Michael.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Jo — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:00:46 -0000

Hmm...My very first post here reads "I think itâ€™s apparent that the Oscars arenâ€™t about mass appeal" and yet you claim that I've never said Hollywood elites aren't at odds with mainstream America?

You asked in your original post, "Is it apparent that Hollywood is pushing an out-of-touch left-wing philosophy that is out of touch with mainstream America?" Did you only want the answer if it was "yes"?

What I disagree with is your conclusion that a group of artists awarding each other for what they perceive as artistic merit amounts to "pushing" a philosophy on anyone in the general public. No one is forcing you or anyone else to watch a movie you don't want to see. Heck, you don't even have to watch the Academy awards, or bother to follow who gets nominated.

Hollywood gives us lots of choice. Movies for the mainstream, movies for families, movies for niche markets, movies for people who like to see lover's quarrel and make up, movies for people who like to see things blow up. The public votes with its box office tickets, and what we vote for is what we get more of.

But the awards...those aren't about appeal. Those are about filmaking - about the art of it. Filmmakers are going to look at a movie differently than the general public, in the same way an artist is going to look at a painting differently than the general public or an architect is going to look at a building differently than the general public.

You say, "The reason I think you canâ€™t see my point of view is that you call my point of view â€œinaccurate,â€ â€œoff-base,â€ â€œdisingenuous,â€ â€œsilly,â€ and â€œat odds with â€œthose pesky facts.â€ "

I say, again...what makes you think I can't see your POV simply because I disagree with it? Is it absolutely impossible that I could see your POV and still think it is inaccurate or silly? That I can see your POV and yet fail to see how the facts support it?

And your POV isn't disingenuous, nor can it be. Your argument was, however. And yes, IMO the facts do not substantiate your assertion, because there certainly have been in recent years movies recognized by the Academy that were not "at odds with Mainstream America".

And I'm laughing hard at you trying to chastise me for using "belittling" language, given Sean's entire first post directed towards me.

Re: Hollywood vs. America

Michael — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:12:55 -0000

The reason I think you can't see my point of view is that you call my point of view "inaccurate," "off-base," "disingenuous," "silly," and "at odds with "those pesky facts." Even when others understand me and agree with me.

Dwight disagrees with me, too, yet I feel he understood my point. And he did it without attempting to use belittling words to knock down my argument.

Only just now have you indicated that you "never said Hollywood elites arenâ€™t at odds with mainstream America." Which was my point to start with.