That’s Not Entertainment
By Callimachus | Related entries in The Politics Of FilmFeeling like Hollywood has gotten more preachy lately? You might be right.
Consider Participant Productions, the makers of “Syriana,” “Good Night, and Good Luck,” and, soon, “Fast Food Nation.” The Guardian took a look behind the curtain:
Set up in 2004 by Jeff Skoll, billionaire co-founder of eBay, Participant’s express purpose is to make movies that will help to change the world. In the words of Meredith Blake, the firm’s executive vice-president: ‘Our product is social change, and the movies are a vehicle for that social change.’
Blake puts it even more bluntly elsewhere. She’s quoted as saying things like, “Participant exists to use films as a means for social change.”
So what’s her role in the company? According to the “Guardian” article,
Blake … greenlights films on the basis of the issues they raise. A project will only move forward if she finds it has a valid social or political message.
“Munich” isn’t one of theirs, but it easily could be.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 7th, 2006 and is filed under The Politics Of Film. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
So, how was Munich? Is it worth seeing?
February 7th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
So Cal, I’ve seen all the films you mentioned and I wonder if you’ve seen them too and what your opinions about them are.
I liked Munich, but I don’t think it deserved the best picture nod. The Constant Gardener was far superior to it, but since Spielberg is Spielberg it got in. But yes, it does have an agenda and it’s not subtle about it.
3.5 out of 5
Syriana was a mess, but I think that was the point. It didn’t coddle the audience and its message about both sides of the oil conflict really reasonated. And in the end, there were no easy answers, no heroes saving the day. I respect a film that takes that chance.
4 out of 5.
Good Night And Good Luck was also very brainy, and frankly didn’t build the kind of dramatic tension I thought it needed. It was more like a snapshot, and a very finely acted one at that.
3 out of 5.
One last thought I want to share is that I believe films are political by their very nature. And I’d rather have people being open about their intentions instead of hiding them. It puts a clear stake in the ground and I can’t see that as anything but positive, regardless of what side of the aisle you’re on.
February 8th, 2006 at 8:09 am
“Munich” I boycotted outright. The others I didn’t see through lack of interest. My co-workers raved about them all, not as theatrical vehicles but (reading between their lines) as important messages affirming their worldview. Which affirms my decision not to go see them. Going to the movies overall is less pleasant than it was years ago, I find, and the awareness that I’m paying $7.50 or whatever to be hectored and to sit through what is essentially a gussied up high school “educational” film strip doesn’t increase my desire to go.
Hollywood producers are free to do was they wish; that’s the beauty of the free market. The other beauty is, if it sucks, people won’t go see it. And Hollywood seems to have forgotten that, along with the fact that a great chunk of its potential audience has a vague resentment about attempts to socially engineered them by the people who created the culture of Hollywood. Especially when there are so many other entertainment alternatives these days.
Somehow it all made more sense when the “insiders” made status-quo insider films like “The Green Berets” and left the outsiders to make social statement films like “Easy Rider.” Both seemed more relevant then, and more honest.
The culture will fragment further. One part of the nation will be talking about “Narnia,” the other about “Syriana.”
February 8th, 2006 at 9:07 am
Callimachus nails the it when he describes the resentment I feel when I’m looking to be entertained and find out I’ve been suckered into hearing some Hollywood fatcat’s sermon instead. What’s really striking about all of this is the level of disrespect and contempt it shows for the audience, who apparently need to be enlightened by their more sophisticated brethren.
My solution (which echoes Callimachus last point) has been to avoid late-vintage movies and go back to the classics where the focus was on human conflict and comedy, and where you had no idea who was a Democrat or Republican in real life.
February 8th, 2006 at 9:50 am
I have another theory about the decline of Hollywood. It’s not just the overt politicization of the product, but also the sense that the era of the “event” movie (by my definition, a “must-see” film that casts a shadow across the entire cultural landscape) is over.
By my reckoning, the “event” movie era began and ended with Star Wars (the first movie in 1977, the final one last summer). After Revenge of the Sith the closest thing we’ve had to a genuine “event” movie was War of the Worlds. Narnia did well for a movie with a specific audience, but didn’t cast anywhere near as long a shadow across the culture as did, say, Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movies. And speaking of Jackson, remember all the talk about King Kong being bigger than Titanic? Instead, it was a titanic flop. Not even Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire qualified as a real “event” movie (there’s always been more buzz surrounding the Potter books themselves than the movies, and the Goblet movie’s release roughly coincided with J.K. Rowling starting work on the book series’s final volume).
Granted, the post-event era of which I speak is less than a year old, but of all the upcoming movies I know of, the only one that has “event” potential is Spiderman 3, and that’s not going to hit theaters until 2007.
February 8th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Oh, and before someone else replies that I forgot about Brokeback Mountain, no, that doesn’t qualify either. It meets the second half of my definition of an “event” movie (it’s definitely cast a shadow across the culture) but not the first (its actual box-office performance is hardly indicative of a “must-see” movie).
February 8th, 2006 at 10:15 am
“Munich� I boycotted outright. The others I didn’t see through lack of interest. My co-workers raved about them all, not as theatrical vehicles but (reading between their lines) as important messages affirming their worldview. Which affirms my decision not to go see them.
Oh, never mind, then.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:40 am
I guess I’m alone here, but I have absolutely no problem with any of this. In fact, I think it adds to the movie-going experience. Not only is there an entertaining story, there is an underlying commentary that is a good catalyst for discussion, whether you agree or disagree.
I guess now that I think about it, I prefer these films to the “event” films listed. For me, if a movie doesn’t say anything, it had better be damn good. Otherwise, I feel like it’s a waste of time. I am a big fan of many types of movies - with and without sermons - but I guess I welcome, rather than boycott, films that attempt to comment on current issues in the world.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Movies can’t have a message, can’t be an editorial comment? Movies are just another medium, why should they be only aiming at entertainment and entertainment only? That sounds like a great plan to get a lot of awesome movies, The Fast and the Furious 5 anyone?
It’s a MOVIE. You’re not voting by buying a ticket; you’re not endorsing the idea. Avoiding movies based on subject matter alone sounds like an excellent way to miss a lot of good movies. (unless you avoid action and fantasy movies - that’s just smart consumerism)
But what’s the harm in going to see a movie which clearly has a goal to influence the viewer on some political issue? At worse you’ll be exposed to viewpoints and ideas you don’t agree with? the horror.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Given Hollywood’s box office performance lately, I think I can speak for the moviegoing public at large when I say that we already get more than our recommended daily allowance of “ideas” and “goals” in the real world. We aren’t looking for a movie to server us a heaping helping of viewer influence when we buy that ticket. We want something simple, affirming, and fun. We want to forget about the conspiracy theories and thorny social issues for a couple hours, not be immersed in them. I’m not talking Fast and Furious 5, but I am talking about Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Narnia.
Others mileage may vary, but given the box office numbers for the past couple years, I think I’m fairly representative of the public at large.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Such a good business move. Sort of like Apple Records.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Well, at least these are all movies that the young and impressionable are going to see. When this company starts putting out Shrek or Madagascar, then I’ll complain.
I suspect this would be a much bigger story if this were a a company pushing a conservative agenda. It would be called Propoganda then…
February 8th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Movies can be whatever they want to be. And I can consume whatever I choose to consume. Nobody here is telling movies what they “can” and “can’t” be. At least nobody who posts under my name.
Every movie has a political perspective? Oh, probably. Every movie is made by human beings who have a view of the world and who unconsciously shape their movies to fit it. Same with Shakespeare’s plays.
But I’m not interested in grad school deconstructionist arcana. I’m talking about agendas. Open agendas. By not very subtle people.
If I want ideas, I go to books. I go to movies to be entertained, thrilled, made to feel, not made to think. Certainly not manipulated politically by people with blunt and two-dimensional notions of who I ought to be and what I ought to think. Certainly not for $7.50 a pop.
Uh-huh. Sort of hit your own wall there, didn’t you?
I have no problem enjoying fine filmmaking in the service of propaganda: The Odessa steps sequence in “Battleship Potemkin” is great cinema, even though I have no fondness for the Soviet Union. But I don’t think the American movie industry, having built itself up as entertainment, can suddenly shift into propaganda without betraying its mass audience. And, ironically, without undercutting genuinely thoughtful, politically provocative filmmakers by standing in their light.
If it’s all just about being “exposed to viewpoints and ideas you don’t agree with,” why not re-release “Triumph des Willens” and “Birth of a Nation” in the local multiplex? Both were groundbreaking cinema and great movies. After all, it’s just another medium.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
BrianOfAtlanta - Do you think you could just express your own opinion without trying to assign it greater significance by claiming that it is representative of the movie-going public at large? Many excellent films that contain “ideas” and “goals” have done very well at the box office, so I’m pretty sure there are enough people who will put up with, or maybe even enjoy, these types of movies.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
I’m actually really surprised at this reaction to commentary and ideas being in a movie. Ford mentioned what would happen if there were “conservative” ideas in the movies. Is that what the problem really is? Do you all not like these “ideas” movies because you think it’s all liberal horseshit? Would you feel the same way about conservative ideas in movies? (Although I’m pretty sure that’s been done too).
February 8th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
The Green Berets was pro-Vietnam war propaganda. And not only I think that, but so does conservative author Tom Clancy. In fact, one of the screenwriters was Col. Kenneth B. Facey, so forgive me if I question why you thought this set up made more sense. Sure, it made more sense for the government and the pro-war crowd, but ultimately didn’t serve to tell any truths, and that’s essential for filmmaking.
Also, if you really think films shouldn’t be political, I think if you look throught the history of filmmaking, you’ll find that films with political messages far outweight the non-political. A friend of mine, who’s a professional screenwriter, contends that ALL film is political in one way or another. Even a “love story” like Titanic had a pretty obvious thread about the poor vs. the rich in it that helped strengthen the overall love story. This is just how films are written, directed, etc. Hardly something to be disappointed with. I mean, did you have a problem with The Passion Of The Christ too?
Now, switching to Joshua’s comments
Sorry Joshua, but I really don’t think you’ve done your research. Here’s a list of event movies that will be coming out this year:
• Mission: Impossible III 5/5
• Poseidon 5/12
• Da Vinci Code 5/19
• X-Men 3 5/26
• Cars (Pixar) 6/9
• Superman Returns 6/30
• Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest 7/7
• Transformers 11/17
• Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix 11/17
And concerning King Kong, it cost $207 million to make and probably had a marketing budget of $100 million. So that puts the total costs at around $300 million. So far, it has made $538,181,307. Hardly a titanic flop.
Also, I don’t really know how you’re classifying “event movie”, but here are the worldwide grosses for the Harry Potter films:
SORCERER’S STONE: $976,475,550
CHAMBER OF SECRETS: $876,688,482
PRISONER OF AZKABAN: $789,791,069
GOBLET OF FIRE: $883,444,768
February 8th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Brian’s not wrong.
“Domestic revenues at movie theaters may fall below $9 billion for the first time since 2001 after averaging $9.3 billion over the last three years. Factoring in higher admission prices, the number of tickets sold is expected to finish at about 1.4 billion, the lowest since 1997.”
Of course, there are many reasons feeding into that. But based on our small sampling here, don’t you think it’s more than likely that one of the contributing causes is that a lot of Americans (including much of the 51 “stupid” percent from the last election) don’t like the kind of movies Hollywood is making, for a variety of reasons, one of which may be the rising number of outright agenda-driven “this movie is meant to make you stop thinking like you do and start thinking like I do” films?
Stop playing with straw men. They’ll give you hay fever. The producers in the original post are talking about the social agenda being primary, and the filmmaking and entertainment and everything else that we expect from Hollywood being secondary.
Social engineering is scary enough. Social engineering by the people who brought you “Waterworld” and who thought “Ishtar” was a great idea? ::shudder::
At least with “Ben Hur” you got chariot races along with your sermon.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
I had many problems with the “Passion of the Christ.” And I reacted to it the way I reacted to my problems with “Munich” and “Fahrenheit 911″: I read and studied the mfilm from a distance, and decided to not go see it. Which is another place Meghan is wrong: Look what we’re doing here: comparting box office receipts from movies that we consider to have agendas. By making movies with such a purpose, you turn every ticket-purchase into a “vote.”
Of course the “Green Berets” was pro-war. That’s why I chose it. Frank Capra’s films were pro-war propaganda, too. I want the establishment media generally to be offering me the establishment version of things. Then I want the anti-establishment producers of “Hearts and Minds” to be offering me the other view of things. That makes more sense to me.
Talking past me again. Please don’t ask me to stand in and pretend to be the bogeymen you wish to fight. The job doesn’t pay well enough and I’m not interested.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Callimachus,
I shutter at the thought of walking into a bookstore that would follow your “for entertainment purposes only” marketing strategy.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
I think you guys are just being stubborn and melodramatic. If most people don’t like these movies, then they can boycott them along with you. You can all review the listings every week and decide which movies were made more for entertainment value than for the social agenda. Go nuts, and have fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I’m sure that once Hollywood starts losing billions because of you’re boycotting, they will straighten up and stop making these horrible films!!!!!
In the meantime, I think I’ll go see them all twice.
February 8th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Huh?
How interesting that you appear to presume every personal decision springs from a social agenda and a desire to change the world. Perhaps for some people that’s a natural assumption.
Making a choice to not buy something is not automatically a boycott. I don’t buy brussel sprouts. It’s not because I’m boycotting Belgium. It’s because brussel sprouts remind me of diseased monkey brains.
Hollywood won’t change in the least because of anything I do or don’t do. I don’t care. I used to go see a lot of movies. Now, hardly any. Maybe Hollywood cares about that, maybe not. The quotes in the post remind me of one big reason why. I get that “diseased monkey brains” feeling again.
February 8th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
I wonder of Meghan and Meredith saw “Team America: World Police” in the theaters. Now THAT was entertaining.
February 8th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
I agree with you, Callimachus, on that point. Best Soundtrack of the Year? If I remember correctly, and I think I do becasue I’ve seen it about four times, wasn’t it *gasp* promoting a political agenda too? One you agreed with though, I’m guessing. So as long as you agree, it’s entertaining? Neat.
As for my previous post — if you think all movies should be for entertainment only, why not all books too? What’s the difference?
February 8th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
My beef with Hollywood centers around awards, not with the industry as a whole. Ever since “Shakespeare in Love” trounced “Saving Private Ryan”, it seems like the Oscars, Golden Globes, et al., have moved toward highlighting smaller, “independent’ PC films. Identity group politics prevail. This year, a fine film like “Pride and Prejudice” gets overlooked in favor of “Brokeback” or “Capote”, for example.
It’s not often I depart company from Callimachus- I certainly appreciate his aversion toward Hollywood hectoring- but I thought “Munich” was a fine film that raised some interesting questions while coming down squarely behind counterterrorism. I also watched “Farenheit 911″, a strong candidate for Comedy of the Year (I found myself happy to see invading US forces- not the reaction Mr. Moore would’ve desired). Haven’t mustered the courage to see “Syrianna”; not a big fan of muddled storylines. Hell, I even liked “JFK”- great entertainment, lousy history. (And yes, Cal- I saw “Team America”- laughed my ass off.)
I have no idea why Hollywood is losing money (if it is). I suspect it has something to do with the tremendous competition for entertainment dollars (sports, videogames, movies, television, on and on and on). But in the meantime, for a political film junkie, there’s plenty out there to watch.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Meghan, what agenda was TA:WP pushing? They skewered the right and left pretty well, I thought…
I’d venture to say that “don’t be an assmunch” pretty much sums up the message there, and that’s an agenda with which one is hard pressed to disagree…
February 8th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
One more thing. “Reds” (1980- Warren Beatty) was one of my all time favorite films. I was always a virulent anti Communist. But I thought Beatty did a great job, despite occasional lapses into glorifying the Revolution.
At the end of the day, always remember that- It’s Just A Movie.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Cal, I respect that it appears as if box office receipts are going down, but that article spoke about bad movies being the cause, not political movies. Sure, and to your point, there is some sentiments about the political films, but I certainly don’t think that has any discernible effect on the box office.
I don’t understand how my comment is doing this. Please explain.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
David,
I shouldn’t have used the word “agenda”, pehaps just saying it definitely conveyed polticial viewpoints would have been more appropriate. But, just because Team America offered equal opoprtunity criticism doesn’t mean it’s not political commentary.
I think the political message they were promoting was “you’re all wrong some of the time and Kim Jon Il (Sp?) is wrong most of the time.”
with that said, matt damon.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
This really seems like much ado about nothing. The people that go to see these types of movies are people that want to see these movies. So isn’t it really just a case of preaching to the choir?
I don’t think I’ve ever enjoyed a movie that was “critically acclaimed”,
so as soon as the critics start raving about it, I cross it off my list because it’s probably got some kind of agenda (Brokeback Mountain).
February 8th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
I’d agree, Ford, except that the self-promoting awards process has traditionally increased the box office take of award-winning films. So by targeting unknown films with high PC content, Hollywood can and does affect their general exposure.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Wrong again. It was, as David says, an equal-opportunity offender. The whole opening scene, in which the team saves Paris from an (apparent) atomic bomb — and in the process topples the Eiffel Tower onto the Arc de Triompe — then leaves the dumbfounded Parisians with the parting salutation, “No need to thank us,” was an exact skewering of the moral ambivalence of a position I happen to hold. Well done! After I stopped laughing (which took a while) it made me think long and hard. Some artists can do that.
But if I sense I’m in the presence of an idealogue, who stands on one side of an issue and is going to use all the tools in his artistic arsenal to coax, bully, and torture me into agreement with him, I’m sure not going to open myself up to that. I’m not going to commit myself to his work with the viewer’s necessary investment — which is not the dollar price of a ticket so much as the lowering-of-guard involved in suspension of disbelief.
Sure! Apples are oranges. Why not make orange-sauce?
Make you a deal: When you can find where I say “all movies should be for entertainment only,” I’ll gladly answer this question.
Kreiz, when I was a young liberal in the Reagan era I thought “Red Dawn” was a highly inspiring film. But I’ve written about that before, so I won’t bore you with it here. Don’t start me on that “Pride & Prejudice,” though.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Meredith, nomally I would be reticent to attribute my own opinions to the public at large, but in this case the numbers back me up too well.
Or, perhaps you weren’t aware that even though Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night and Good Luck, and Munich all expanded their screens by the hundreds in anticipation of the normal Oscar bounce in moviegoing, their numbers either dropped from the previous weekend or improved by only slight margins over already dismal performance. Brokeback was the only one to break $3.5 million, and it dropped 13% from the previous weekend, even with 435 extra screens. Walk the Line was the only one besides Brokeback to break into the top 10 for the weekend.
When even an Oscar nod can’t get the public to go see your film again or to give it a chance, that says something. The moviegoing public just doesn’t want to see movies like these. Period.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Message movies sell well if the audience wants to hear the message - Passion of the Christ is a prime example, and it even overcame the subtitles thing. I stayed away though, but not because I don’t like the message (!) but because I have my limits on gore. I think that was a failure on my part.
Hollywood only half aims its movies at American audiences anyway. On the other hand American audiences eat Chinese movies up. Crouching Tiger did very well, and behind all the flying through the air it was loaded with messages. The struggle in Zhang Ziyi between the two types of strong women was very topical in these latter days of the women’s movement.
It’s a mistake to expect the Oscars to track sales figures. Why should they? What would be the point? The sales figures are enough reward in themselves, I would think. The Oscars are the film-making community’s judgement on the film-making craft of the movies considered. Since when does the film-making have to speak for the public? The profits do that.
February 8th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
So what I’m hearing is “What’s the deal with artists actually inserting their world view into their work?” Callimachus seems to have a prety narrow view of what constitutes acceptable filmmaking. I suspect the underlying issues is that he doesn’t really see film as art, just entertainment, and feels that “messages” should be reserved for real art, like books.
And as for all of the people who are totally misusing some basic box office statistics to make their point, first of all, the explosion in DVD rentals, partly fueled by the increasing sophistication of home entertainment systems, has had a significant impact on box ofice receipts. But guess what? If they’re watching the movie at home, they’re still watching the movie. Becaue people don’t want to pay $8-10 doallrs to go to a theater doesn’t mean they don’t want to see the movie.
As for the emergence of “small” films in the Oscar race, much of that is a fallcy. The screenwriter John Rogers does a good job of debunking the myth here http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/ (see Feb. 1), but basically, he points out that Shakespeare in Love grossed $100 million, so it wasn’t exactly the little indie that could. And here’s the 16 films that grossed between Saving Private Ryan and Shakespeare: Armageddon, There’s Something About Mary, A Bug’s Life, The Waterboy (?!), Doctor Dolittle, Rush Hour, Deep Impact, Godzilla, Patch Adams (?!?!), Lethal Weapon 4, The Truman Show, Mulan, You’ve Got Mail, Enemy of the State, The Prince of Egypt, The Rugrats Movie. Other than The Truman Show, which of those movies deserved to be in the race? Here’s some subsequent Best Picture winners, with their grosses: American Beauty ($130 million gross); Gladiator ($188 million); A Beautiful Mind ($170 million); Chicago ($170 million); Return of the King ($377 million). And as Rogers so astutely points out, Hollywood is about making money. The people who vote for the Oscars aren’t the ones with skin in the game. These movies are getting made because somebody thinks they’ll gross. Do you really think all of these Hollywood producers are saying “Sure, we’ll lose money, but it’s for a good cause?”
February 8th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Brian, I think you’re either mixing up information or not getting from the right source.
Nominees were announced on the 31st. Look at this last weekend and you’ll see that every best picture nominee except Brokeback saw gains. Even Munich gained a little tiny bump.
However, the big winners were Capote, which gained 229% over the weekend before and Good Night, and Good Luck, which gained a whopping 739% over the weekend before. Crash didn’t gain anything because it’s already out on video and no longer in theatres.
In fact, if you look at the gains, the ONLY movies in the top 20 this past weekend that gained over the previous week were the Oscar nominees I just mentioned.
Sorry Brian, your numbers don’t add up so your theory is moot.
February 8th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Stop trying to lowbrow me. There are books that are art and books that are information and books that are entertainment and some that are combinations of the three. Same with film. I do not like a book that pretends to be non-fiction, but in fact is largely invented, for some purpose.
You put your messages wherever you like them. I’m only writing about myself here, not ordering the world around. If I want to learn about, say, Iraq before 2003, I’m likely to go to certain printed sources to do it, choosing them based on my ability to discern works that present fact from those concerned with polemics. I’m not likely to rent “Fahrenheit 9/11″ as part of that. To do so would be a waste of time. If you reject that way of proceeding, so be it. I will continue with it regardless.
The main stream of Hollywood movie-making traditionally has been entertainment. That’s what a great many people go to the theater to experience. Entertainment is never a pure experience. There’s always a degree of politics or morality or informing leavened into the mix. But we’ve reached a point where a major producer of mainstream Hollywood fare, with millions of dollars and plenty of marketing savvy is openly asserting that its primary purpose is to foment “social change” in America.
That seems to me to be a line that’s been crossed. That’s not “inserting their world-view into their work.” To me, it’s more like “tricking an audience into the theater with a promise of entertainment and giving them a good brainwashing instead.”
I don’t like it. But there’s a lot of things I don’t like. My reaction is, I have no desire to see such movies. If you like them, go wild. But you might also want to think about the wisdom of having a mass media culture that is aware of its capacity to change the political equation and intent on steering the social agendas of a nation.
I get a kick out of those Chick Tracts the Christians hand out on the streets, you know, “Rock Stars Go To Hell,” that sort of thing. Comic books! Pictures! Entertainment! But of course the whole point is to get you to drop to your knees and confess your sins. I feel the same way about the current wave of social-agenda-driven filmmaking.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
From “Newsweek,” Feb. 6, 2006:
Next …
February 8th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Funny, Callimachus- I just read Newsweek’s interview of the 5 director nominees. Here’s the first question:
“Q.Your movies this year tackled racism, terrorism, same-sex love, government intimidation and the ethics of journalism. It feels like we’re in the 1970s again.
Clooney: People who get mad at us like to say that we’re pushing it- but in general we reflect it.”
Spielberg later comments that “[their films] were all maverick productions that dared to challenge audiences with things that they feel very private about.”
As far as pointing out the large grosses of Oscar winning films, it may be a chicken & egg issue. Would “American Beauty” or “Beautiful Mind” have garnered huge grosses without Oscar nominationsn or wins? We’re left to speculate. And there are notable exceptions- the epic “Gladiator”, for example. But there is a detectable trend for Hollywood to lift politically relevant film (in its judgment) to the fore.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Comparing Chick Tracts to films like Syriana and Munich? The difference is, you’ve seen Chick Tracts. You haven’t seen those films.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
But I haven’t seen every Chick Tract. Just enough of them to recognize the pattern.
And in both cases (tracts/movies) I can refer to the published statements of the creators as to their intentions. Which is what we’re talking about here. From there on, it’s just a question of effectiveness or lack of it. I can tell you it wasn’t very effective on me, because I was so turned off I didn’t go see it.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
I still think it’s a clumsy comparison. You and I both know that by associating these movies with something like a Chick Tract, it conjures a very extreme image in somebody’s mind. And since we’re talking about recent movies you haven’t seen, I don’t think it’s an apt comparison.
By the way, I actually think you’d enjoy Good Night, And Good Luck, but I’m almost positive you wouldn’t like Syriana or Munich. And Capote is a good flick too about Capote more than it is capital punishment. In fact, there are really not judgements in the movie except against Capote himself.
February 9th, 2006 at 12:12 am
You may find Chick Tracts extreme. I just find them simplistic. If it makes you understand how extreme Hollywood is beginning to look to some of the rest of us, then it’s a fine comparison. We’re talking about perceptions here.
Who said anything about “Capote?” I imagine I’d enjoy that, too, since I love “In Cold Blood” (and “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”). I’d hope it captures the cruel truth that all real writers, eventually, sell out everyone they know.
I’m sure I’d enjoy the evocation of ’50s journalism in Clooney’s movie, too.
Think we’ll ever see a “Participant Productions” movie about that? Me, either.
As for “Munich,” I’ve already explained my minuscule one-man boycott here. It doesn’t matter, but it’s my right.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:10 am
Yes, it does make me understand how “simplistic” you think Hollywood is getting. Trust me, it’s certainly eye opening when a couple films are causing you so much upset as to compare them to Chick Tracts, which are blatantly homophobic, push the message that the Catholic church invented Islam to destroy the Jews and suggests that the Vatican orchestrated the Holocaust.
I mean…come on…the comparison is NOT apt in the least and I wish you would revise it.
Cal, we’re talking about cinema for chrissakes. The history of film is littered with examples which are far more extreme and dogmatic (and simplistic) than Syriana, Munich or Good Night. And yes, I know you’re pointing out a production company talking specifically about social change, but many other filmmakers have talked the same game and much more vigorously. I just don’t see why it’s such a big deal now. Maybe it’s because you’re so invested in the WOT and you see these films as a direct threat to winning it? And remember, I’m talking in general here, not specifically about Munich.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:54 am
““An Inconvenient Truth,â€Â? a documentary about Al Gore’s crusade against global warming.”
Yeah, that’s a real snapshot of Hollywood producers today. Please, I’m sure you can do better than that.
February 9th, 2006 at 8:50 am
Give up psychoanalysis, it doesn’t suit you.
Film, more than most arts, has the power to create images that stick in the mind. It has the power to shape people’s perceptions of reality that even poetry lacks. I’m not troubled by this trend because I dismiss the power of film. I’m troubled by it exactly because I respect that power.
And I fear the effect of a bunch of bubble-people in Hollywood with wishy-washy arrogant heads believing they are empowered to rewrite the past, present, and future of America and the world, and feeling they are duty-bound to do so by some higher calling from a secular God.
And I choose to neither subject myself to their crude attempts at brainwashing nor to subsidize their work. That makes me obsessive, in your book.
I’ve probably read a dozen books about Richard III or the War of Roses or English history in which Richard figured, yet I’ll never be able to hear his name without immediately having images of Shakespeare’s delightfully nasty, murderous hunchback king. But Shakespeare’s Richard is head-to-toe a fictional caricature, created for a political as well as an artistic purpose.
So when George Clooney wants to do the same thing with recent American history, without one tenth Shakespeare’s skill or art (or humor) in the name of his personal power and need to change America’s present and future, in the name of a dogma he believes as firmly as Jack Chick believes his own, I politely decline to participate. Why is that so hard to accept?
It always made me uncomfortable, as a historian, even when I was on the liberal side. A movie called “Under Fire” came out circa 1983 that used a very simplistic, streamlined version of the Sandanista overthrow of Somoza in Nicaragua as its setting. It made me uncomfortable, and I wrote it in a review, to see what ham-fisted Hollywood did to history, even though I essentially agreed with the politics that motivated it. No WOT in sight. Back then it was just one flick, and the love story still was the main thing. Now it’s a movement.
February 9th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Chris: I pretty much bought Jason Apuzzo’s analysis without much thought. Kung Fu Monkey’s fisk has sent me back to the drawing board to rethink the issue, so I appreciate the link. Monkey observed that 2004 was a pretty bad year in film (”Million Dollar Baby”, best film- “Sideways” as its upstart contender.) Perhaps the 05 nominees reflect a similar phenomenon.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Don’t put words in my mouth Cal. I don’t say nor suggest it. Not all liberals who disagree with you think you’re a pro-war freak, so quit playing victim here. It doesn’t suit you.
I think it’s completely reasonable to ask you a question about the WOT since you are so heavily invested in your idea of how we should win it. If you believe that’s psychoanalyzing, well, I can’t stop you from thinking that.
However, your next three paragraphs talk specifically about how powerful film is, so it’s kind of odd to get chided for asking a question and then you basically go on to tell me how film can change people’s minds. You even talk about brainwashing. But if you’d actually SEE these movies, I doubt you’d think you were trying to be brainwashed. But hey, you’re convinced. There’s nothing I can do about that.
However, I do notice that you completely ignored my main point in the last comment about the Chick Tracts. I still think your comparisons are clumsy and a bit insulting to people like me who’ve seen the movies and realize that they aren’t even anywhere close to being the same as those comics.
Que sera sera…
February 9th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Brian, I think you’re either mixing up information or not getting from the right source.
My numbers came from USATODAY:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-02-05-box-office-analysis_x.htm
Nominees were announced on the 31st. Look at this last weekend and you’ll see that every best picture nominee except Brokeback saw gains.
Did I ever say they didn’t? Their gains were pathetic, and didn’t match the increase in screenings they received. Viewers per screen went down, the weekend after an Oscar nomination. That’s not supposed to happen.
However, the big winners were Capote, which gained 229% over the weekend before and Good Night, and Good Luck, which gained a whopping 739% over the weekend before.
Capote quadrupled their screens to get that 239% increase and took in a whopping $2.5 million. Good Night and Good Luck increased their screens by nearly 800% for their 739% gain and took in $1.5 million. Neither movie managed to get the same number of viewers per screen as the previous weekend. The weekend after they received an Oscar nomination! That’s pathetic.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:54 am
I don’t have to see them to know the producers are trying to brainwash me, because the producers are quite up front about saying so. How is it that that point hasn’t sunk in yet?
I don’t have to eat cyanide to learn its effects. In fact, I can be the world’s leading expert on cyanide without ever having tasted it.
Lets turn the psychoanalysis around: Why is it so important to you that I see these movies? Why can’t you just let it go? This is beginning to sound eerily like the Michael Moore zombies who insist that if only everyone had been forced to watch Mike’s movie, everyone would have voted correctly in 2004. Hmmm, this Kool-Aid smells funny.
Sorry if I insulted you by comparing a great many of the current crop of Hollywood movies to poorly written Bible tracts. I didn’t realize you were so invested in the current crop of Hollywood movies. Jack Chick thinks he has a mission to save the world. He has a set of dogmas which yield certain points of view on contemporary social issues. So do the zealots of Hollywood. They look about the same to me — kooky — and I reject them both. Sorry if that insults you. Go burn my embassy.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Hey, what happened to italics tags?
Is there a list somewhere of what tags are allowed these days? Or better yet, could we get a preview button for posts?
February 9th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Think I got that fixed, Brian. Carats, not brackets.
February 9th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
I am pointing out the inherent contradiction in your logic when you denounce these movies yet don’t see them for yourself. Personally, I don’t care if you see them, but I do take issue when you denounce them without seeing them. In fact, this seems completely contradictory to your consistent laments about your co-workers who DO NOT have the facts, and yet make broad proclamations anyway.
This is like when The Last Tempation Of Christ came out and numerous religious groups denounced it without seeing it. Because they “knew” what it was about. And it was actually an extremely faith affirming movie in the end, but they’d never know because they never saw it.
And to your point about creating art to drive social change = brainwashing, do you honestly believe this connection? They’re sharing their point of view with you. That’s it. You have the opportunity to either accept or reject it. I think Spielberg made an interesting point about escalation in Munich, but I think it’s overly simplistic and comes from a book that has since proven to be written by somebody who was not involved in the assassinations. So I reject the message. The same goes for music and any other art form that tries to drive social change. You can enjoy the song, but not make the message your mindset.
You’re actually taking this opportunity to compare me to Islamic fanatics? Wow.
I’m sorry the numbers don’t meet your approval, but they still gained. And 9 times out of 10, “per screen average” goes down when you add more screens. I don’t know how you’re determining people per screen. Where are you getting that info? Or are we talking about the same thing but using different words?
But if you don’t believe me, look at the weekend before and after the 2004 Oscars were nominated. Also, you’ll find the same trends in the previous years (after the Oscars have been announced) of 2003, 2002, 2001 as well. All saw fairly modest gains, and no true pattern emerges regarding political vs. non-political films.
I’m sorry, but I really don’t think you have compelling evidence to support your theory. If you want to run the numbers further and try to convince me, I’ll definitely consider it, but it certainly doesn’t appear like you’ve exposed a trend.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
If I were criticizing the acting or the blocking or the lighting or the writing of these movies, you could correctly call bullshit on my for not having seen them. I’m not. I’m criticizing the motivations of those who make them, as expressed in their own words which I have seen. There’s no logical contradiction in that at all.
And I expect many who have seen the movies have not read the stated motivations of the producers. I didn’t “denounce” the movies. I said I had no intention of seeing them. I wonder when my words started meaning a great deal more to other people than their literal sense. I denounced the attempt, by certain utopians, to use Hollywood’s reach and power to propagandize Americans (and the world) in the direction of particular social agendas.
Your taking my dismissal of Hollywood as a personal insult does strike me as a rather far-fetched basis for indignation.
It surprises me that this is so infuriating to some people. If you’re on the liberal/Democratic side, just switch the buzzwords. Find out that there are some much-hyped and industry-awarded films being made and distributed all across America by people who say, ‘Our product is patriotic loyalty, and the movies are a vehicle for that patriotic loyalty,’ or ‘Participant exists to use films as a means for traditional family values,’ or ‘A project will only move forward if she finds it has a valid theological or conservative message.’
February 9th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Because I never said “all movies should be for entertainment only.” I said, or would say, Hollywood has built its reputation and its audience on making entertaining movies, and now it is succumbing to the temptation to make political statements dressed up as movies. I think it’s dangerous — more for Hollywood’s bottom line than for America’s political system — when the people who brought you “Gigli” now want to instruct you how to vote (”A project will only move forward if she finds it has a valid social or political message”).
Hollywood is a particularly poor choice as an educator, because its core skills are manipulation of images and emotional appeals, which are qualities of propaganda more than education.
I prefer that Hollywood studios concern themselves primarily with making entertainment and story-telling vehicles that the public expects, and leave the polemical filmmaking to those who are better at it, better qualified to do it, and worth watching.
I no more care what a Hollywood producer thinks about the social complexities of the Middle East than I care what my bartender thinks about them. All things considered, I prefer the bartender, actually.
It would be the same with a book. When a Tom Friedman or a Samuel Huntington or a Robert Fisk writes about the Middle East, it’s worth knowing what they’ve said. But I don’t read them for amusement. I find Roddy Doyle enormously funny, and maybe I learn something about Irish working class life when I read him, maybe I don’t. But I don’t really want to read his thoughts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Ne sutor ultra crepidam, goddamn it.
February 9th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Good Lord!
Where to begin …
February 9th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Heh.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Sorry, young child immediately intervened …
February 9th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
At first I though I should go all the way back through this thread, from soup to nuts …
But, no. I’ll react in fragments.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
First, some general statements:
The original post both reflected its writer’s necessary talent for writing both headlines, and more important, good ledes (that’s not a misspelling, by the way).
It did reflect a particular point, and even a point of view (though I daresay more narrow, as presented, than espoused. At least I hope). It didn’t reflect a lack of a larger knowledge of movies, or the artistic, societal, and historical background thereof.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
That said, I can understand some of the controversy here. But not the willful misunderstanding of what, in my view, is the point most worthy of consideration here. Not that I’m saying you have to agree with it (though the history of film argues for the point), but you should consider it.
Traditionally, some of the great films of independent view–some of the greatest films, period–among which are those we now consider icons came about as a reaction against a larger mainstream.
That’s not to put down the mainstream.
It is to say that they would not exist otherwise.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
And those great examples of counter-film would not have worked then, and will not work now, as mainstream product. No matter how much Hollyword celebrities and Great Figures In Film want them to. No matter how much a certain sector wants (or, more accurately, certain sectors, which would include me–if I could create an ideal world, which concept I gave up long ago–might want) would like that reality to be different.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Callimachus keeps arguing, as I see it, that Hollywood works best in dichotomy: mainstream pix (and I’m sorry, your latest remake #50, puerile kids’ movie, and video-game-lift-up doesn’t cut it–that’s my aside entirely, not C.’s) with a healthy and vigorous counterpoint acting as against the prevailing flow.
And he’s right.
(Aside: That’s true generally in the Arts. What, you don’t think so?)
February 9th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Since I can see that nobody’s here now, I’ll check in at a later point.
But I’ll leave with this: When artists–at least of the most pop forms, which, regrettably, is the true with regard to film, for the most part, for the most incredibly long time–degenerate to the point that they think that their art is mostly about propagating their narrow, personal and political views, they’ve become living, breathing visions of O. Henry’s “Gift of the Magi.”
Go look it up.
February 9th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
I see that I forgot to say that Hollywood has every been about attracting “the big audience.”
It still is.
Only now, it either wants to whack that audience for not sharing Hollywood’s politico/socio vision, or coast by with the most puerile stuff. Either way, it translates to contempt.
It just does.
February 10th, 2006 at 1:09 am
This was my first time commenting here. I will acknowledge right up front that I’m utterly renowned for my typos in comments. I type quickly, very; I speak quickly, very, very; and the problem is that I think more quickly–very, very, very!–than either of those things.
I’d rather that it be otherwise, but it’s not. So it goes. Sorry for the skipped words and whatnot, though.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:38 am
Don’t sweat it. Actually, I like your multiple comments. They keep thoughts in digestable chunks. It’s certainly a departure from the norm, but I actually dig it.
Hope you continue to read and comment.
February 10th, 2006 at 8:26 am
What is it about my comments that end up being a discussion-thread kill? I’ve noticed this before …
Thanks, Justin, for your nice words.
I have enough trouble making my POSTS one, unified whole. I think if tried to do comments in one, elegant (hah!) essay-like piece, I’d probably have to just give it up.
February 10th, 2006 at 9:59 am
What is it about my comments that end up being a discussion-thread kill? I’ve noticed this before …
I don’t think it’s you as much as the age of the thread. By now, the trenches are dug, the barbed wire is laid, the batteries are sighted in, and nobody has the energy to charge into No Man’s Land.
February 10th, 2006 at 10:10 am
iam: don’t worry, I’ll kill the thread for you. First, don’t apologize, I like bite-size comments myself. Not everyone has Callimachus’ ability or patience to string together long essays. Second, I agree with your not-so-startling conclusion that Hollywood is about money and art, the latter often with a leftish bias. Your conclusion is consistent with my informal analysis of the 5 Best Film nominees for the last several years. My grand conclusion- 3 of the 5 were usually big mainline films; 2 were usually ‘message’ films (again, all subjective). So, like most things, it was a mix.
Finally, Justin- I enjoyed “Munich”, a very worthy film. Spielburg walked a tightrope, remaining steadfastly anti-terrorist while raising the ‘cycle of violence’ specter.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
RIM, you raised something I had utterly overlooked: Some commenters might be responding to my headline as though it were a thesis statement, not just a throwaway gag. Crhist almighty, I come from the Irv Lieberman school of headline writing. He used to wave his cigar at you and say, “Da headline don’t hafta mean nuttin’, it just hasta get da reader’s attention.” And then he’d fire you.
February 10th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
The purpose of movies and movies with a purpose, see here.
February 28th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
[...] Heh. Looks like I’m not the only one who noticed the off-putting preachiness of last year’s Hollywood crop. Even a liberal — sorry “liberal,” as we’re putting the word in scare quotes now till we know for sure the subject’s attitude toward Locke and David Lloyd George — such as Salon’s Andrew O’Hehir has a funny take on it as he doles out the statuettes he calls “the Liberal Guilt Awards, otherwise known as the Guilties,” in which Hollywood congratulates itself for its general condition of progressive enlightenment and lectures the rest of us from its newfound position of half-baked moral seriousness. Now, strange to tell, this year’s nominated films are exactly the same for both the Academy Awards and the LGAs. [...]
March 5th, 2006 at 6:08 am
hmmm. I thought ‘Old Boy’ kikd ‘Munichs’ revenge plot all over the park. Or tarmac. sadly, olympians in questionable tracksuits die in bleached, grainy, pseudo private ryan blood fountaining agony, and lets b honest, palpable pathos, while nobody nowhere mourns the slow death by molar(s) of one nude octopus with no political significans whatsoevr. Aanyway, anytime anyone mentions ‘brokeback’ like its a new revolution suddenly brought glaringly, and of corse, beautifully, 2 our collective atten-shuns by holy-wood ‘ortta remember that cowboys bin sleepin with their herds (oops, should that b ‘himds’) fer eons and no celluoid bumlikn for the pc crowd is gonna change that anyhoo. oh., have’nt actually seen said flick yet but herd the predictable bellyhoo from afar. sounds like an oscar stampede 2 me.