what makes a film conservative...

[billc]

This is an article which points out several distinct traits in a movie that make it conservative as opposed to liberal...

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/aprice/2011/07/19/what-constitutes-a-conservative-film/

From the article:

To bottom-line it, conservatives believe in the individual over the collective but temper their belief in individuality by requiring people to act according to a code of conduct based on traditional morality. Liberals believe in the collective over the individual and, where they allow individuality, they disdain traditional morality or personal responsibility. Thus, uniquely conservative values tend to be centered around:

(1) faith in individual rights over collective rights,
(2) an acceptance of cause and effect, and a willingness to let people bear the good and bad consequences of their actions,
​

(3) an unwillingness to excuse misbehavior as something beyond the control of the individual, i.e. society made me do it,
(4) the idea that respect and dignity are earned, not a right, and must be maintained through appropriate behavior,
(5) a belief that truth is absolute, not relative,
(6) an acceptance of human nature as it is and not as something that can be changed by government tinkering, and
(7) support for rule of law over nebulous concepts of supposed “fairness.”
​

Hence, a film that advocates individual rights over collective rights will generally be conservative (e.g.1984 or 1975’s Rollerball…. yes, Rollerball), as will films where characters learn they have to earn the respect of others (Drumline??) or where they accept individual responsibilities (The Blind Side).
But don’t look for just one aspect in isolation. To be a conservative film, a film must have conservative values deeply ingrained throughout the film. The positive characters must act according to those values and they must be rewarded for it. The film can’t mock conservative values or treat them as social outliers, and it can’t reinforce the leftist propagandized view of the world, e.g. minorities can’t succeed without the government, religion is a tool of oppression, capitalists are evil, etc.
And the key to deciding if a film does this is to look at how the film defines good and bad, i.e. what gets rewarded, what gets punished, and what does the film say about how we are supposed to solve our problems.For example, a film about a character taking responsibility for their own life is probably conservative, especially if they are breaking out of a history of dependence on government to regain their lost human dignity. That’s a pretty powerful conservative message. But if the form of “responsibility” they choose is to become a thief, and the film rewards that behavior, then it’s not a conservative film.

 

[Ken Morgan]

sigh...
Sometimes a movie is just a movie.

 

[granfire]

If bigarsepajamas likes the film it's conservative.

If not, it's left wing propaganda....

 

[HammockRider]

It seems the definition of conservative changes often these days. I liked it better when "conservative" meant, "a mean old man who jealously looked after your money." You know, like Mr. Mooney on one of the Lucy shows.

 

[Omar B]

 

[RandomPhantom700]

The positive characters must act according to those values and they must be rewarded for it.

I'm cherry-picking this line, admittedly, because it illustrates something I don't like in cinematics and story-telling in general: good guys vs. bad guys. Protagonists v. antagonists. I realize that such a dualistic setup is often necessary for simple conflict development, but it seems more realisitic in my mind that a hero have faults, and even the most despicable villain have redeeming qualities. That, and audience-members/readers find themselves cheering certain behavior by the good guys while deploring the same behavior by the bad guys (sound familiar?)

As for the list of conservative markers, I quit reading after the "liberals disdain personal responsibility" bit. More of the same dualism and insults.

 

[granfire]

I'm cherry-picking this line, admittedly, because it illustrates something I don't like in cinematics and story-telling in general: good guys vs. bad guys. Protagonists v. antagonists. I realize that such a dualistic setup is often necessary for simple conflict development, but it seems more realisitic in my mind that a hero have faults, and even the most despicable villain have redeeming qualities. That, and audience-members/readers find themselves cheering certain behavior by the good guys while deploring the same behavior by the bad guys (sound familiar?)

As for the list of conservative markers, I quit reading after the "liberals disdain personal responsibility" bit. More of the same dualism and insults.

He is looking at the Roy Rogers movies and the likes: Good Guy is clean shaven and wears a white hat, gets the girl in the end. Certainly not an Eastwood movie, where the 'hero' is scrubby and bending the rules to his needs, playing both ends against the middle.

 

[Omar B]

I'm cherry-picking this line, admittedly, because it illustrates something I don't like in cinematics and story-telling in general: good guys vs. bad guys. Protagonists v. antagonists. I realize that such a dualistic setup is often necessary for simple conflict development, but it seems more realisitic in my mind that a hero have faults, and even the most despicable villain have redeeming qualities. That, and audience-members/readers find themselves cheering certain behavior by the good guys while deploring the same behavior by the bad guys (sound familiar?)
As for the list of conservative markers, I quit reading after the "liberals disdain personal responsibility" bit. More of the same dualism and insults.

It's a more naturalistic approach, but I'm not for that at all. I don't want to feel for a villain, nor do I want to loath a hero. Sacrificing romanticism at the alter of naturalism seems pretty normal now but I prefer romanticism as a movement on a whole. Nothing wrong with gritty heroes, I just hate them being made to look almost as bad as the villain.

 

[granfire]

It's a more naturalistic approach, but I'm not for that at all. I don't want to feel for a villain, nor do I want to loath a hero. Sacrificing romanticism at the alter of naturalism seems pretty normal now but I prefer romanticism as a movement on a whole. Nothing wrong with gritty heroes, I just hate them being made to look almost as bad as the villain.

well, it's part of the tools of story telling which billi wants to deny us.

There are the heroes that wake up every morning and put on their white hat (they never need to shave either) and save the world, then there are those who are just thrown into a situation that makes them a hero, against their better judgment or own will.


And of course there are the villains that kind of grab your attention and you shed a tear once they are brought down.
(that can be a girlish trade tho, we all fall for the bad guys...)

It depends on the story you want to tell.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

well, it's part of the tools of story telling which billi wants to deny us.

There are the heroes that wake up every morning and put on their white hat (they never need to shave either) and save the world, then there are those who are just thrown into a situation that makes them a hero, against their better judgment or own will.

And of course there are the villains that kind of grab your attention and you shed a tear once they are brought down.
(that can be a girlish trade tho, we all fall for the bad guys...)

It depends on the story you want to tell.

A friend of mine put it perfectly once (yes, we're sufficiently geeky enough to have these discussions): One is Superman, one is Batman.

And I've never really shed a tear for a villain, but there have certainly been antagonists whose views have caught me nodding my head in agreement....until, of course, they go shooting up some innocent bystanders.

 

[billc]

It is a big film world out there and there is room for just about everything. Entertainment is, as howie mandel stated about comedy, subjective. People can enjoy a lot of different things and it would be nice if hollywood tried its best to appeal to all tastes.

 

[Omar B]

I see what you are saying ... though Batman (as per your example) never shot up anyone. Nor has The Punisher, Moon Knight, Blade (he accidentally killed one human but he was working for vampires to he technically was a villain) and any number of anti-hero you may subscribe to.

But yes, I'm of the mind that admires the hero influenced by romanticism. Superman is my ultimate example of the Greek Ideal, as strong in body as he is in mind and as virtuous as the day is long. The whole being an integrated whole, not a collection of warring impulses within the hero, not a burden to be carried (but rather a freely undertaken quest).

I would like to point out that I'm a fan of the anti-hero too, after all, I don't think there's a bigger (literary) James Bond or Conan fan on these forums.