Emanuel Levy, professor of critical studies in the UCLA Film School and author of the book "All About Oscar: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards," said he thinks the tremors of a post-9/11 world have just caught up with Hollywood in this year's Academy Award races. Levy said that when society faces a divisive issue, such as the war in Iraq or the response to terrorism, critical movies emerge, but not immediately.In other words, Spielberg is totally bullshitting. It's not about Bush, it's about Clinton.
There is an expression in Hollywood that the studios make movies about what people were talking about last year. There is always a lag between idea and premiere. "Munich" took six years to reach the multiplex. "Brokeback Mountain" took eight. "Syriana" is based on a book written during the Clinton administration.
५ मार्च, २००६
"I just feel that filmmakers are much more proactive since the second Bush administration."
Says Steven Spielberg. "I think that everybody is trying to declare their independence and state their case for things that we believe in. No one is really representing us, so we're representing our own feelings, and we're trying to strike back."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२० टिप्पण्या:
The entertainment industry delights in knocking conservatives. And conservatives delight in watching the industry's revenue drop like a rock as a result.
Mike Lief:
You hit on the other reason people don't go to movies anymore. A typical person can afford to get a better picture and better sound in his own home than he can get in most movie theaters.
It's not about Bush, it's about Clinton.
But Clinton's policies -- what he actually did -- didn't really come from where one might think he was politically, did they? For example, if Brokeback Mountain took 8 years, that means it started up around 1998, two years after Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which spelled out that gay marriage != marriage. So that movie makes sense, as a political reaction, no?
Despite the Democrat in the White House, the politics and legislation of the latter half of the 90s are, I think, unmistakably Republican -- right up to Clinton's lame little "micro-initiatives," like V-chip censor systems and school uniforms. By and large, I think Clinton was forced to take positions way over to the right of where people think he personally would have been (judging from what he tried and failed to do during his initial honeymoon).
If Bush, then, just came in as President reflecting this right-ward political shift, rather than leading it, it seems perfectly reasonable for Spielberg to latch onto him as a visible symbol for the shift that has left Hollywood behind.
I haven't been to a megaplex in two or three years now. The screens are too large, the sound systems are too loud, and the introductory commercials are annoying. There is no reason why I should "pay" to have an unpleasant experience. On the other hand, I'm constantly watching recent releases from Blockbuster, or even buying the ones that catch my fancy. Why won't the industry understand that if "the medium is the message", they are being ill-served (at least for boomer-aged people like me) by insisting we watch the latest releases in unpleasant megaplex surroundings (and I haven't even mentioned the price of the popcorn!)
On the other hand, last summer I stumbled on one of those small-town tiny movie theaters (the ones with small screens and only about fifteen rows of seats). The evening ticket price was $3, and the cost of popcorn $1 ... can you believe it? I saw "Wedding Crashers" there, and it was a delightful experience.
The only reason I mention these things is because like Mike Lief (above) I'm a movie buff. But "political proactivity" or any obscure intellectual reason has nothing to do with "why" I won't go to megaplexes. It's because the industry has made it a painful experience, and who in their right mind chooses pain?
"It's because the industry has made it a painful experience, and who in their right mind chooses pain?"
Anyone who would go see "The Shaggy Dog"? Just seeing the poster for that makes me want to throw myself in front of a train.
"No one is really representing us, so we're representing our own feelings, and we're trying to strike back."
Hahahahaha. Left/liberals like Spielberg have tight control of the largest megaphone in human history, yet NO ONE IS REALLY REPRESENTING US! Who's us, anyway? Billionaires? People who make movies about giant sharks and charming aliens?
Speilberg isn't just totally bullshitting. Munich may have taken years from the idea's conception to the day it was released, but, in reality, the movie was shot in a hurry (in just a month or so in the fall of '05) and edited together quickly in order to get it out on time. In fact, the studio was worried that it wouldn't be ready in time. So no matter how many years it took to get the funding and the cast lined up, he actually filmed the movie in 2005, and the script was re-worked extensively in '05 and even during the shooting of the film.
What really soured me on the idea of seeing Syriana was when I looked up the actor who plays Prince Nasir, the total fantasy democratic good guy Arab sheik.
His roles have included... two other characters named Nasir, and one named Bashir (on Star Trek).
If you can't even come up with an original NAME, what are the odds you're going to come up with an original take on geopolitics?
American Idol's success is an excellent example of what happens when Hollywood pays attention to the rest of America.
Does that explain why most of the performers who've done very well on Idol are absolute crap?
I read the book by Bob Baer that Syriana is supposedly based on, but it's nothing like the movie. The movie seems pro-terrorist, anti-US. The book was more complaining that the US wasn't anti-terrorist enough. The author was upset that we never retallized against Hezbollah for killing all the Marins and CIA officers. And the author was aghast that he was investigated for by the FBI for plotting against Saddam.
Proactive? It means "Acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty; anticipatory: example 'proactive steps to prevent terrorism.'"
I thought these people consider themselve artists. Is there such a thing as proactive art?
What is he trying prevent from 6 years ago that hasn't happened yet?
I hope it wasn't the election of Hamas to run the Palestinian state, cause his movie is too late for that. And his portrayal of Palestinians as just average people like us, doesn't quite sound so convincing since they voted for a terrorist outfit to run their "government." That was a tough sell anyway when you think of them sending their kids off to be kamikazes just to kill a few people they don't even know.
Hollywood has become, for all intents and purposes, another planet.
The denizens of said planet have their own culture, values, and politics based upon the tiny bit that they are able to comprehend of the politics and cultures of Earth.
Hollywoodians used to resemble the inhabitants of Earth, but over time they became convinced of their own omnipotence and have since become essentially unlike any living human being.
Their remaining entertainment value to Earthlings derives from what some Hollywoodians will say, do, and wear which brings laughter, pity, and sometimes sympathy to many Earthlings yearly.
They also provide money that to fund motion pictures made in New Zealand that Earthlings find entertaining. However, almost all product produced by indigenous Hollywoodians is palatable only to other Hollywoodians and tends to make Earthlings sick and/or disgusted when consumed - which they are doing in ever decreasing numbers.
what's so bizarre is that (a) these lefties like spielberg actually believe this crap; and (2) they make movies about unpopular themes which undermine traditional values, and (3) then they say stupid stuff even though it's bad for business.
if h-wood made movies which reflected popuar values then they make more money.
but i guess these h-wood millionaires all have enough dough, so they feel like their leftist propgandizing is so important it's worth sacrificing some additional personal income (which they can certainly afford to do.)
and because it's a closed industrial community they think their normal, only they all got Pauline KAEL'S disease: she's the film critic who said after Nixon one reelection in the biggest landslide of all time: "I don't belive it! EVERYONE I KNOW VTYED FOR MCGOVERN!"
the success of narnia and passion and incredibles and lotr proves that there's a huge market for good movies which reflect traditional values.
h-wood would rather tear down our traditions and make less money. this typical of RICH leftists.
Gosh, Mike Lief, aren't you being a little tough on bathrooms at Chinese restaurants?
No, that helps to explain why Idol had ratings higher than its three closest competitors combined.
But the singers that rise through the weeks to the top are still mostly crap, whatever the ratings. Justin whassisface? Crap. Kelly Clarkson? Nothing special. Clay Aiken, triple crap. Maybe middle America has been deprived of good talent for so long, now it settles for crap. Been down so long, it looks like up.
Drew, perhaps you should learn not to make assumptions about the person making an argument, and instead focus on the argument. I've lived in red states all my life. My point is that being on the charts doesn't mean anything about talent, or quality. Good sales doesn't equate to being a good musician. Britney is not a singer; she doesn't produce music But she makes money. To me, that indicates a cavernous hole in American taste. Christina A. actually has pipes, and bothers to train them. That's a good thing. The people that get the votes on American Idol are mediocre. Maybe middle America likes mediocrity. Maybe it's comforting. Maybe they've bought into the craven idea that there's something evil and elitist about performers with talent and training, who've done more than learn some dance steps and big gestures to cover up that they're flat when they belt that high note at the end.
If that's so, that's too bad. Just because Middle America buys it, doesn't mean it's worthwhile.
If outfits like Napster can outwit the music industry
Uh, is that really the best example? I mean, the music industry took Napster to court and destroyed it. Who uses Napster now? It's all iTunes, if you want it legally, and BitTorrent or Kazaa or whatever if you don't.
Hoolywood suffers from the disease of intellectualism.
In his book, Intellectuals, Paul Johnson summarized the error thus:
"One of the principal lessons of our tragic century, which has seen so many millions of innocent lives sacrificed in schemes to improve the lot of humanity is - beware intellectuals.
Not merely should they be kept well away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of particular suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice.
...
For intellectuals, far from being highly indivualistic and non-conformist people, follow certain regular patterns of behavior. Taken as a group, they are often ultra-conformist within the circles formed by those whose approval they seek and value. This is what makes them en masse so dangerous, for it enables them to create climates of opinion and prevailing orthodoxies, which themselves generate irrational and destructive courses of action."
[p.342]
Verification word ~nygbrrgh:
What I say when scanning down the myriad films at the Googleplex theater, finding nothing I want to watch, except maybe Walking the Line. Again.
And Semanticleo,
Are you gonna post this identical post on every thread here? Sheesh, whatta bore. Just like Hollywood: repetitive pedantic prigs.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा