5 Myths About Those Tinseltown Liberals

[Big Don]

[SIZE=+2]5 Myths About Those Tinseltown Liberals[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By Andrew Klavan[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Washington Post[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Sunday, October 12, 2008; B03[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Excerpt:
[/SIZE]
Hollywood used to be called the Dream Factory, but nowadays it seems to be grinding out as much propaganda as anything else. Next off the weary assembly line: Oliver Stone's "W.," which opens on Friday. If the trailer is any indication, this movie will depict our current president's life as an evolution from drunken loser to dangerous idiot -- and just in time for the election, too.
The director of "Nixon" and "JFK," Stone has shown himself to be a master of rewriting reality until it resembles his left-wing ideology, but he's by no means alone. For the past 30 years or so, Hollywood storytelling has been guided by a liberal mythos in which, for example, blacklisting communist screenwriters during the '50s was somehow morally worse than fellow-traveling with the Stalinist murderers of tens of millions ("Trumbo"); Che Guevara was a dashing, romantic liberator instead of a charismatic killer ("The Motorcycle Diaries"); and the worldwide violence currently being waged by Islamo-fascists is either a figment of our bigoted imaginations or the product of our evil deeds ("V for Vendetta").
Hollywood moviemakers, in other words, have been telling lies -- loudly, constantly and almost always in support of a left-wing point of view. And these lies are most prolific and tenacious when the Hollywood left is lying about itself. Here's a list of their most egregious whoppers:
1. Hollywood has no political agenda -- it's just out to make money.
Would that it were so. All through 2007, Hollywood sent American multiplexes the message: "We don't like the war on terror." All year, American moviegoers sent a message back to Hollywood: "We don't care."
END EXCERPT (Except to excerpt the second through fifth myths)

2. Hollywood liberals speak truth to power.


3. Hollywood liberals are liberal.

4. Liberals don't exclude conservatives; conservatives just aren't that creative.


5. Hollywood leftists are patriotic in their own way.
End Excerpt
Interesting article. G rated movies make tons more money than movies of any other rating, yet, many directors aim for an R rating as if there were some kind of prize attached.

 

[elder999]

[SIZE=+2]5 Myths About Those Tinseltown Liberals[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By Andrew Klavan[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Washington Post[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Sunday, October 12, 2008; B03[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Excerpt:[/SIZE]

Hollywood used to be called the Dream Factory, but nowadays it seems to be grinding out as much propaganda as anything else. Next off the weary assembly line: Oliver Stone's "W.," which opens on Friday. If the trailer is any indication, this movie will depict our current president's life as an evolution from drunken loser to dangerous idiot -- and just in time for the election, too.
The director of "Nixon" and "JFK," Stone has shown himself to be a master of rewriting reality until it resembles his left-wing ideology, but he's by no means alone. .

The surprise about “W.” is that its left-wing creator made a movie that is not so much operatic or hysterical as utterly plausible.
Yes, there are soapy oversimplifications and embellishments (and some hallucinatory camera work involving baseball stadiums and showdowns in the Oval Office) that Bush loyalists will seize on as reprehensible distortions.
But all in all, the straightforwardness of “W.” suggests that Mr. Stone set out to make a critical biography but was somehow spooked. The director who has built a career on vowing to unearth hidden truths made a movie that feels more familiar than revelatory

Seen here

 

[Kreth]

Oliver Stone, Director (D)... right?

 

[Gordon Nore]

I have to giggle a bit when I hear the lamentations about Hollywood liberals.

Stallone, Schwarzenegger, and Willis anyone?

The left and the right in Hollywood work in different ways. Oliver Stone makes docu-dramas. Michael Moore makes documentaries of an entertaining sort. Their films are polemical, and I quite enjoy them.

Films featuring America's more Republican players -- ie the Holy Trinity of big budget action flicks listed above -- tend to be allegories in which outrageous violence is the only reasonable recourse in extreme situations. I like their films too.

To quote Tom, narrating the opening scene from Tennessee Williams' The Glass Menagerie:

Yes, I have tricks in my pocket, I have things up my sleeve. But I am the opposite of a stage magician. He gives you illusion that has the appearance of truth. I give you truth in the pleasant disguise of illusion.

I delved a little deeper into Klavan's article and found the following quite disturbing:

Making anti-war films while American troops are under fire is not patriotic. Exporting movies that consistently show the United States in a bad light is not patriotic.

I would argue that being able to make and show ant-war film in time of war shows that the First Amendment might just be alive and well, which is extremely patriotic.

 

[Archangel M]

Oh sure..Stone has no political aims with this movie at all.

Right

 

[Big Don]

I have to giggle a bit when I hear the lamentations about Hollywood liberals.

Stallone, Schwarzenegger, and Willis anyone?

How many movies have Bruce and Sly made recently? If you think, this long into his governorship that Schwarzenegger is a conservative, you obviously haven't been paying attention. Arnold's celebrity got him elected, to pretend otherwise is to ignore facts.

Michael Moore makes documentaries of an entertaining sort.

No. He does not. Calling fictional films documentaries doesn't make it so.

I would argue that being able to make and show ant-war film in time of war shows that the First Amendment might just be alive and well, which is extremely patriotic.

You could argue that, and be wrong. As stated in the article patriotism is a love of one's country, making America and Americans out to be the sole source of evil in the world is not showing a love of one's country. Oh, sure, it is using the Constitution to their ends, but, that, in itself is not loving the country. Using the freedoms ensured in this country to run this country down is not patriotic.

 

[Sukerkin]

If you believe that America is not the source of most of the woes of the world at the moment, in the eyes of those that are outside of the States, then that could well be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Patriotism is all very well, just as faith is all very well ... the proviso is a soto voce "Within limits". The "My country, right or wrong" attitude sold very well in times gone by but that's what's gotten us (i.e. "The West") in so much trouble of late.

Things might look all very rosy in Casa Americano (lack of a functioning economy not withstanding) but appearances are very deceptive.

I have asked before, Don, if you could tell us what has lead you to such extreme views (or at least the views you choose to express here at MT). It'd be very interesting to hear what it is that so guides your steps and makes you proof against all alternate viewpoints.

 

[Archangel M]

If most of the "Old World" could have handled the last two world wars without our help we wouldnt be where we are in the world today.

If we werent called upon or expected to deal with international problems as often as we are we wouldnt be where we are today either.

We arent so bad when someone wants our money or our military, until we arent wanted any longer.

 

[Sukerkin]

Probably best not to go there, Angel. Then again, as I'm about the only active Englishman here on the boards, it really doesn't matter - my one voice will soon drown.

 

[Archangel M]

Say as you will..."most" of our military presence around the world is the due to WWII. The cold war build up and whats currently left of it is directly related to our post war military presence in Europe after WWII. WWII is what broke us out of isolationism.

Mind you Im not one of the "The US saved your *** in WWII" types...not at all. None of the allies alone would have done it (although the Pacific campaign was at least 85% a US operation that kept the Japanese from distracting the USSR from their western front). All Im saying is that if we were never involved in WWII I dont think we would be as globally involved as we are today. Not even close.

 

[Sukerkin]

That is true and I will say in America's defence that 'you', as a people, did not come willingly out of islolation and had no 'designs' on the world stage such as have since played out.

I think perhaps I should point out that any negative connotations from above are not directed at the American people but rather the corporate 'string pullers' that are deciding the foreign policy that your governments follow. The tail is wagging the dog and putting decisions into play that are very much setting your country up to be the "Bad Guy" in the eyes of many.

Sadly, the Mod in me has to say that this is a discussion for another place, as it has not much to do with the OP . I wonder where would be an appropriate place? 'The Study' maybe? Tho' given that many of the overt effects of this 'corporate politics' are military, perhaps the War College would not be unsuitable?

 

[Archangel M]

One final point.

It would also help if it didnt seem like the rest of the world always turns to us to "do something" when theres a genocide here or an invasion there. If that is indeed a fact or not..thats how it seems to appear. "You guys are nosing in where you are not wanted!".."Hey what are you going to do about this!?!?"

 

[Gordon Nore]

How many movies have Bruce and Sly made recently? If you think, this long into his governorship that Schwarzenegger is a conservative, you obviously haven't been paying attention. Arnold's celebrity got him elected, to pretend otherwise is to ignore facts. No. He does not.

In mentioning Sly, Willis, and Arnold, I thought I was stating the obvious. They have been huge backers of the GOP for a very long time.

Calling fictional films documentaries doesn't make it so.

I called them documentaries of an entertaining sort. I also said that the films of Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are polemical, which is to say it's not like their bias is some kind of secret. If a movie goer walks into a Stone or Moore movie without knowing in advance that what they will has a strong liberal or leftist point of view, s/he shouldn't be allowed out unsupervised.

Similarly, a movie-goer attending a Stallone/Arnold/Sly film knows that the story arc will involve bare knuckles and big guns.

In regards to my comment about free speech / First Amendment, you said,

You could argue that, and be wrong. As stated in the article patriotism is a love of one's country, making America and Americans out to be the sole source of evil in the world is not showing a love of one's country. Oh, sure, it is using the Constitution to their ends, but, that, in itself is not loving the country. Using the freedoms ensured in this country to run this country down is not patriotic.

Whose country are you talking about? Approximately half your own electorate did not want George Bush, Jr, in the White House in two consecutive elections. This is the danger of this America: Love it or leave it business. Are they supposed to simply put up and shut up for eight years? Are critics of a sitting president automatically unpatriotic because they exercise a constitutional right to criticize that president's running of the country? I can guarantee you that the GOP did not shut up for eight years that the Clintons were in the White House.

And yes, regardless of what you or that Hollywood hack have to say, I think the First Amendment is a very strong example of love of country in the USA. It means you're prepared to hear things you don't agree with. It means that you're mature enough to argue with the person who said them, rather than dismiss them as unpatriotic or un-American.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Probably best not to go there, Angel. Then again, as I'm about the only active Englishman here on the boards, it really doesn't matter - my one voice will soon drown.

You're not completely alone on that score, Sukerkin. Though I'm Canadian, I know exactly what you are talking about.

 

[Andrew Green]

If most of the "Old World" could have handled the last two world wars without our help we wouldnt be where we are in the world today.

Actually, do a little more history reading, both wars had turned before the US got involved. Which it only really did in response to attacks on the US (Germany sinking some ships in WW1, Japan at Pearl Harbour in WW2)

One thing that would have happened with WW2, had the US not gotten involved, Russia would have marched straight across Germany, and the Soviet influence on Europe would have been a lot stronger, which was something the US wanted to limit. US help in Europe was also partially dependent on the Allies help in Japan, which had declared war on the US.

American help was definitely a good thing, without it the fight would have lasted a lot longer and possibly could have turned again, and likely would have resulted in more deaths. But it most likely would have been won without the US.

But back to the topic, Hollywood is not all 'liberals." Not even close, there are movies made on that side of the line, but there are also movies made on the other side of the line.

Movies get made to make money, everything else is secondary to that. If a movies doesn't make money then the film maker will be out of a job.

Some genres tend to lean left, others right. Just depends on the target audience. Sci-fi tends to lean left, comedy tends to lean left, military - right, religion involved - right, cop shows - right, superheros - left.

Who cares? They are just entertainment, watch the ones you like, not the ones you don't.

 

[Archangel M]

"Turned"? WTF? The Germans were watching the English coast from the East side of the channel before D-Day. Without Lend/Lease none of the Allies would have survived. Without the US keeping the Japanese occupied in the Pacific, they would have opened up another front on the USSR. You are misguided in your Anti-US fervor.

As I said I was never saying that the "US won WWII" just that it is a large part of the reason for our current global positioning.

And for our "small and unnecessary" role in it we certianly wound up with a large and mostly uncontested post war presence.

Oh and that Marshall Plan $$ was nice too.

 

[Sukerkin]

Come along, gentlemen. This is a discussion worth having, if only to clear the air between some of us forumites who may see some historical events in a different light ... but we're actively diverting this thread.

We can either start a new one in the Study or elsewhere or we can meet in a pub and have this out . I'm sure that all of us would learn something as every event has more than one side (tho', for the record, 'Ours' is the right one ).

 

[Twin Fist]

Probably best not to go there, Angel. Then again, as I'm about the only active Englishman here on the boards, it really doesn't matter - my one voice will soon drown.

Suk, how is he WRONG?

that man has a point, everyone around the world cries and moans 'where are the Americans" when something bad happens to them....

then afterwards, they like to call us names over plates of some disgusting crud they call a 'cheese"

 

[Twin Fist]

But back to the topic, Hollywood is not all 'liberals." Not even close, there are movies made on that side of the line, but there are also movies made on the other side of the line.

nope, dont think so, and you aint gonna change my mind

lets just put it this way

name the last military movie that painted the US Military in a positive light?

having trouble? it isnt a shock.

for every "We were Soldiers", there are 5 "Stop loss" made in hollywood, and even though they NEVER make money, hollywood keep cranking out these turds

redacted
stop loss
valley of elah
redention
lions for lambs


why, if as you say, they are all about profit?

cuz they HATE the US military and more importantly, they want the people to hate them too

 

[Archangel M]

And how about "cop movies"..theres at least 2 (possibly 3) "dirty nasty rouge killer cop" movies playing now.

If they arent outright dirty then they are these "Max Payne" type cop heroes who are out on a rampage of "street justice".