Finally, Justin- I enjoyed “Munich”, a very worthy film. Spielburg walked a tightrope, remaining steadfastly anti-terrorist while raising the ‘cycle of violence’ specter.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I’d rather that it be otherwise, but it’s not. So it goes. Sorry for the skipped words and whatnot, though.

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.

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.

And he’s right.

(Aside: That’s true generally in the Arts. What, you don’t think so?)

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.

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.

But, no. I’ll react in fragments.

Where to begin …

if you think all movies should be for entertainment only, why not all books too? What’s the difference?

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.

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.’

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.

Go burn my embassy.

You’re actually taking this opportunity to compare me to Islamic fanatics? Wow.

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.

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.

Is there a list somewhere of what tags are allowed these days? Or better yet, could we get a preview button for posts?

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.

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.

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.

That makes me obsessive, in your book.

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…

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?

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.

Yeah, that’s a real snapshot of Hollywood producers today. Please, I’m sure you can do better than that.

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.

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.

America enshrined in its history books the years of ‘McCarthyism,’ during which two major Soviet spies suffered rather unpleasant deaths and a few university professors and film directors temporarily lost their jobs, then returned to write their books. Post-war hysteria went somewhat further with America’s ally, the Soviet Union. The victims can be counted in millions. [Gregor Dallas, "1945," p.585]

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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?�

From “Newsweek,” Feb. 6, 2006:

“This isn’t about the box office. None of us are going to make a dime. [What's at stake] is, you know, the planet.” Laurie David, wife of “Seinfeld” cocreator Larry David, on coproducing “An Inconvenient Truth,” a documentary about Al Gore’s crusade against global warming.

Next …

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?”

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.

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.

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.

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.

As for my previous post � if you think all movies should be for entertainment only, why not all books too? What’s the difference?

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.

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).

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.

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.

I don’t understand how my comment is doing this. Please explain.

At the end of the day, always remember that- It’s Just A Movie.

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…

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.