"Hollywood" is corporate America
Conservative pundits are back to bashing "Hollywood" for allegedly making films that don't reflect our values. Here are two recent examples:
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2006/03/05/who-is-hollywoods-audience/
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/03/v_for_propagand.html
I don't defend either of these films, and don't plan to see them. But I think the protests are misdirected. The two films in question are released by studios owned by megacorporations General Electric and Time Warner. They will continue making movies like these as long as they think people will pay to see them -- unless their other business is affected. Why aren't the conservative pundits calling for boycotts of light bulbs or America Online? Once again, conservatives raise a ruckus while ignoring the folks who are really responsible for the alleged problem. They just can't come to admit that there just might be something imperfect about capitalism!
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2006/03/05/who-is-hollywoods-audience/
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/03/v_for_propagand.html
I don't defend either of these films, and don't plan to see them. But I think the protests are misdirected. The two films in question are released by studios owned by megacorporations General Electric and Time Warner. They will continue making movies like these as long as they think people will pay to see them -- unless their other business is affected. Why aren't the conservative pundits calling for boycotts of light bulbs or America Online? Once again, conservatives raise a ruckus while ignoring the folks who are really responsible for the alleged problem. They just can't come to admit that there just might be something imperfect about capitalism!
posted by Charlie Hall at 4:23 PM
3 Comments:
I'm not conservative myself, and I happily acknowledge that capitalism is imperfect, but it works far better than any other system yet devised. (Parenthetically, I've never quite understood why the people moaning and groaning about the power of film to influence never take the next step, and make films advocating their own beliefs. If "Air Bud 2" could make it to the screen, the hurdle cannot be that high.)
That does not equate to your assertion that imminent profit is GE's only motive for making Brokeback Mountain (although it may well be). If the company believes that it is important to keep Ang Lee happy by making movies for all the gay mans, they may finance what turns out to be an over-long, and over-boring movie because in the long run, a happy Ang is a productive Ang.
- Moishe Potemkin
v for vendetta is actually a pretty good flick. not as good as the comic book (which was a critique of Lady Thatcher's England), but is pretty good.
Is it propaganda? No, not really. It's just an action flick with a message, namely "fascism is bad." If some of the message is that there's a shtikel of fascism in the current Bush administration, well, hamavin yavin.
As to Brokeback Mtn, I think it was a calculated risk that it would make a lot of money, and it did. It was a reasonably low-budget movie, since there weren't big explosions and the actors were B-listers for the most part.
Of course "V for Vendetta" was propaganda, though not as much as the comic author wished -- thus he disowned himself from the film.
Ironically, a much better piece of an examination of propaganda was the television mini-series "V."
Though it had a mediocre story line, it is a work of art as an example of propaganda technique.
See my comments below on a comaprison of "V for Vendetta" and "Munich."
http://judahmacabee.blogspot.com/2006/03/historical-accuracy-vs.html
Post a Comment
<< Home