A Reader E-Mail For You To Chew Upon
CG writes: “As someone who has studied both politics and movies at the university level and has logged more hours in a movie theatre than most, I have to say I don
May 18, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
CG makes many good points and I agree with a lot of what he says, but the “other side” sees everything in black and white as well (you’re either with us or against us; if you aren’t pro-war you love Saddam and terrorism, etc). Maybe that is the main problem, that both sides have eradicated all of the complexity and gray areas.
Ridley can talk all he wants, but although KINGDOM OF HEAVEN comes across as a nice 21st-century revisionist telling of 12th-century history, the film presents moderate Christians as the good guys, moderate Muslims as worthy opponents (and occasional political allies), extreme Christians as villains, and extreme Muslims as villains too. Admittedly the extreme Muslim is a really minor character and the evil Christians figure prominently in the plot, but then again the whole story is essentially Christian-centric as well.
Some movies are polemics, others are just stories — but these days everyone likes to read between their lines and insert their own opinion there.
No doubt, CG writes a well thought out commentary. But let’s be fair, here. Hell, let’s be “fair and balanced.” To single out Hollywood for showing some “extreme” points of view in its products is like singling out the Boston Red Sox for having too high a payroll. Sorry, but there are more players in this game that just so-called Hollywood.
Extreme points of view are everywhere, but those from the left, who disagree with the president, seem to be singled out for their “hatred” and “extremeness.”
Just watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh and you’ll tasteless references to Ted Kennedy’s drunk driving accident, comparing judges to terrorists, showing pictures of Democrat politicians posting with Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden (check out Rush’s web site), and some ghastly stuff that does not get as much attention as it deserves. I mean, Rush Limbaugh’s show gets piped into armed forces radio, it is the preeminent talk show, sanctioned by the armed forces. You would think that ideology that currently has all the power could show some more class.
And need I point further than Ann Coulter. She is a widely respected pundit for the right, praised by the White House, invited on talk shows all the time, and was just featured with a gushing profile in Time Magazine. Just a few weeks after 9/11, she actually stated, in a column, that Timothy McVeigh blew up the wrong building and should have targeted the New York Times building. She is a highly respected member of the media, CG, where was the outcry about HER extremism?
And you know, I love it when those on the right complain how Hollywood is “out of touch.” As if the conservative media elite, including O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and Coulter are true populists in touch with the needs of the “heartland.” Sorry to single them out, but I tired of hearing O’Reilly and Limbaugh lecture me about how they understand us, unlike those wacky Hollywood types. Both of these guys make over $15 million a year and live in high-rise NYC condos, far from fly-over country. Rush collects vicadyn and Bill subjects his underlings to his sexual fantasies over the phone. If these guys are supposed to represent the “common people,” then I’ll take Michael Moore any day of the week.
His “man of the people” shtick can be a little much, too, and he’s just as rich and probably just as disconnected at this point, but you don’t see his type lecturing us on values, while stockpiling on pain killers, do you?
I see it as a very bland subject altogether. What does “one sided diatribes that have many facts but very little truth” even mean? Kingdom of Heaven “an extended political rant by someone who gets their politics from the The Daily Show”? I’d also have to say that every being on Earth thinks that “We are good and enlightened while every one who disagrees with us is demon seed spawned from the loins of Satan”, otherwise they would change to another side, right? You’ll have strong views in the undercurrent in any worthwhile piece of art. Why stop now?
Excellent insight Geoff, and extremely accurate as well. Very well-said.
All politics aside Hollywood is in business to make money, if they think there’s a audience for a particular subject they’re going to make the film. I suspect the politics of the film are second to the potential income. Michael Moore is proof of that, just because CG and those like him hate Moore the box office of his films are proof that there are people out there willing to listen.
I don’t understand why people think hollywood has the obligation to tell the trueth they don’t. Just look at all the films recently with the disclaimer “based upon a true story” or my current favorite “inspired by” Just watch the film Memphis Bell and the research what really happened on it’s last mission, (nothing interesting in case you were wondering) Hollywood has no obligation to tell the trueth or bothsides of the story, neither does the news really but that’s another story.
It’s all about the dollar signs. You want trueth or perspective then take the time to find it yourself.
Clarification I ment the news doesn’t seem to think they need to be nuetral or present both sides.
Funny how everyone wants the other side to be more moderate/reasonable/fair in its views, but sees no need for the same on their own side. CG would have more credibility if he showed as much clear-eyed honesty about his own beliefs as he does about others’. As it is, the author displays little awareness of the irony of his own huffy political rant.
The main message I took from Crash is that people need to make more of an effort to listen to each other. I think that applies to what CG is discussing as well. Listen carefully, rather than just wait to speak.
SB, correct me if I’m wrong but I think you meant your last line to be “Listen carefully AND wait to speak,” which I think is a point well taken. A growing problem we are seeing, which is demonstrated all the time on this blog, is that people now have so many outlets for speech that they rarely bother to listen to or contextualize what’s actually been said before chiming in. For example, I have found that it is the norm (not the exception) on this site for responders to misquote, misattribute, and nonsensically misinterpret statements by other posters, after which many others lash out at them on the basis of those falsehoods. That is more than just frustrating and hurtful. In the grand scheme of things, it is manifestly dangerous.
Or perhaps make it “Listen carefully WHILE waiting to speak.”
Geoff- great commentary but you missed the point. CG was talking about Hollywood films, not red talk show hosts.
I think CG is right on. But…I also have no interest in seeing a “right-wing” film. I get that crap every day on the news.
I think it’s sad that if a director wanted to present a film from a conservative point of view, he would be ridiculed ala one Mel Gibson. Sure, Mel’s laughing all the way to the bank and sure, all the right-wing pundits have been able to have a field day with Michael Moore and his ilk to even things out. But I can’t think of any narratives with a decidedly “right wing” take on anything and that’s just weird.
I wonder what the common reaction would be to an Enron doc featuring the Clinton administrations role in the whole thing. Would it be one of rejection or would it spark discussion?
I also don’t know what CG is alluding to in the films of the 60’s and 70’s that were more fair or accurate. Can anyone help me out here?
I mostly agree with CG, although some of you are also right to point out that there are the same types of people on both sides. However, film being the subject, the vast majority of filmmakers are from the left. It seems to me that the anti-religion, anti-Bush side seems particularly vehement now, moreso than when Bush Sr. or Reagan were in power. I don’t really know how to explain it, but does anyone else agree?
But I digress. Michael Moore is a talented documentarian. I have an enjoyed most of his work, especially Bowling For Columbine. However, he began to show in that film what he would do with Fahrenheit 9/11. His agenda began to get in the way of his voice. F9/11 is a well-made, infuriatingly biased film. Once you get past the ha-has of laughing at someone making goofs, there isn’t much there. Yes, it did gross over $100 million. And, yes, watching GW goof was amusing. But Passion Of The Christ did well over $300 million. And I’ve heard just as many from the left rail against it as I’ve heard from the right rail against F9/11.
Too many people in this world don’t look for truth themselves. They want Michael Moore (or Ann Coulter) to tell them. Find the truth for yourselves. To Moore’s credit, it got me searching for the truth behind his film, but that is another story.
don, how about National Treasure, or any other jingoistic action movie ever made? Or movies like Man on Fire, which the red staters just love. Eye for an eye justice. There are countless examples. Chester, you’re right. Listen carefully and wait to speak.
LiveWire, there is a lot of anti-religious sentiment these days because of how crazy some of them are acting. A recent example: the pastor in North Carolina who kicked out of his church all of the members that refused to vocally support Bush. That is messed up.
I think he meant “waiting to speak” in the sense that you’re not listening to others, you’re just biding time until you can start up with your own opinion. Listening carefully being the desirable alternative. In any case, the general idea came across, what’s a little phrasing between friends?
My contribution to the debate at hand would be that just because the vocal Right is just as partisan, doesn’t mean that Hollywood is clueless. There IS a center. And we’re tired of the same old arguments.
Michael Moore? Asshat. Ann Coulter? Asshat.
Al Franken? Asshat. Rush Limbaugh? Asshat.
The truth is, none of these people are worth discussing, and dragging their names, along with their corresponding labels into any conversation makes that conversation by definition unproductive.
Let’s get back to CG’s original post. The fact is that most movies that are released with a political message attached ARE left-leaning. That doesn’t make them bad, and in fact I love plenty of them, work by Oliver Stone and George Clooney among them.
Speaking as a 22-year-old college kid desperately putting off entering the real world though, so much partisanship and political correctness that framed the discourse in past decades seems so vacuous and idiotic anymore, and while South Park and my senses of humor don’t overlap that much, I appreciate their skewering of longstanding political institutions. The two-party system, the continuous political line with liberal on one end and conservative on the other, just don’t work anymore. They’re STUPID. And all of my college-age friends agree.
Typo, line 5: ISN’T clueless
Political Correctness has been one of the worst things to happen to this culture. It has negatively effected almost everything. From media to literature to academia.
Yes, very much so.
When we’ve stopped discussing the issue and instead are trying to catch each other in rhetorical traps…
When we’ve stopped discussing the issue and instead cling to winning the argument instead of solving the problem…
When we’ve stopped discussing the issue and instead are divided up into dodgeball teams with one side licking the President’s ass and the other barbecuing him with a flamethrower…
…then we’ve lost. Forgive me if I still retain the patina of idealism. I’m young, it’ll wear off.
teambanzai is bang on target. Hollywood is all about money.
Except in extreme cases (which usually are indie-oriented filmmakers), it’s not about proselytizing, it’s about maximizing profit. And of course, capitalizing on controversy to continue maximizing profits.
I’m a Blue Stater and I love Man on Fire. I also loved the rank absurdity of Red Dawn, back when so many people were taking that comedy as a serious polemic. I also love Mr. Slave sticking Paris Hilton right up his ass on South Park. I also love An Unmarried Woman. I also love All That Jazz and Singin’ In The Rain and Network and North Dallas Forty and…
You get my point.
I’m all for Id Movies. I only ask that the blood be real and the consequences as brutal as movies can make them… as opposed to the safe fake uberviolence of Kill Bill or Sin City. It goes back to Fight Club vs American Beauty. Give me Fight Club, which as the message of “Stop whining and take responsibility for yourself” while American Beauty says, “It doesn’t matter… you are powerless… you might as well die… live a little before you go.”
Everytime I (or it seems, almost anyone) think(s) that I know what the Red States or the Blue States (and idiotic simplification of the politics of millions of souls) like, I miss the joke.
Kingdom of Heaven allows for extreme violence in the name of a higher good. But allowing even for that is open to interpretation on either side of the aisle.
Bush might say that Iraq is a case of violence and death in the name of a higher good. And the loud left won’t allow him that belief… they disagree so strongly, he has to be lying… maybe he just believes it.
Flip side… the left would be okay with the idea of having gone into Rwanda and killing Hutus to keep Tutsis from being massacred, no?
Really believing and dealing with all the ramifications of any belief is very tough.
Red Dawn is one of the funniest movies ever made. Loved every hilarious second of it. Someone mentioned that there are no red state movies out there. I only meant to counter that argument. I didn’t much care for Man on Fire, but it has nothing to do with me thinking that it appeals only to red staters and everything to do with just not enjoying the flick, especially Tony Scott’s directing.
I couldn’t stand Man on Fire, mainly because I don’t think Tony Scott’s style is appropriate for a movie like that one that wanted to be taken seriously. It’s more appropriate for a big goof of a movie, like True Romance, or Domino (seemingly).
Also, since Man on Fire came out at the same time as Abu Ghraib came to light, the presence of our American hero in the movie righteously torturing his enemies seemed very inappropriate.
Oh, and Red Dawn gave me nightmare when I was 8…haven’t seen it since…was it the Starship Troopers of its day?
Stella’s Boy, do me a favor and give me your definition of “jingoistic.” Does that simply mean pro-American to you, as it seems to (otherwise, why bring up “National Treasure,” which certainly does not fit that term’s dictionary definition)? If so, you unwittingly make a great point about the state of today’s liberals, calling “jingoistic” movies conservative. I would think pro-American films could be enjoyed by both sides of the political spectrum.
And anybody bringing up Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. is missing the point. This is a MOVIE website, and we are talking solely about MOVIES. Of course there are blowhards on the right, but CG obviously didn’t choose this forum to talk about them.
The simple truth is that if you are on the far left or the far right, you are not a rational person.
I am certainly not the first person to label National Treasure jingoistic. I have seen countless others do the same in reviews/commentary about the movie. I thought it was a given. That’s the Bruckheimer way. I am not on the far left.
Stella: I am an unapologetic, bleeding-heart, Old School leftie. The first time I got a chance to vote, I voted for George McGovern. I volunteered to go door to door and help register Democratic voters during the Mike Dukakis campaign. I belong to the American Civil Liberties Union, I’m a founding donor of the US Holocaust Museum and I donated every penny I could spare last year to John Kerry’s campaign. I voted twice for Bill Clinton, and never regretted it a day in my life.
And yet you know what? Even I don’t know what the f**k you’re talking about when you call “National Treasure” jingoistic.
So hostile joe. I must have made it up. My mistake.
Not hostile. More like totally gobsmacked. I mean: Huh?!?! I mean, “Dirty Harry” is fascistic? Well, OK, I can see where you’re coming from, even though I strongly disagree. But “National Treasure” jingoistic? No kidding: How?
It’s clearly not. I was mistaken, as I previously stated.
Well don’t do that again. When intelligent people that I respect start making wacked-out statements like that, I fear I’m having an acid flashback. Which is odd, and possibly paranoid, considering I’ve never droped acid, but never mind.
My understanding was that it’s flag-waving, jingoistic tripe. I thought that was the common perception. It appears that I am very wrong (at least about the jingoism), and I apologize. I won’t go running my mouth again about something I’m not qualified to speak of.
SB, if everyone here stopped talking about things they don’t have the qualifications to speak of, this would be a very quiet, lonely place.
All I know is that I’m perfectly fine with someone who wants to make a left film or a right film. Just don’t pretend you’re actually playing to both sides.
I’d rather a film with black or white than a murky shade of grey or beige.
I’m perfectly fine with left and right films, but it would be nice to see a “right” film once in a while. Name drop warning: When I interviewed Sydney Pollack for “Random Hearts” a few years ago, I expressed my shock that Kristin Scott Thomas’s character was a likable Republican. He laughed, and agreed that we don’t see too many of those on the big screen. Typically we get the Richard Dreyfuss “American President” stereotype, the scheming cigar-smoking backroom crook.
Right. Or they’re like Gary Oldman in The Contender.
voted for mcgovern. i feel for u leydon. thats terrible. u want me to take the dennis kucinich bumper sticker off ur car for u?
No good Republicans? Hey, what about Abe Lincoln. They always make HIM look nice, even in “The Birth of a Nation.”
Hollywood is out of touch on political films. They just haven’t evolved. They don’t realize this country is now a Republican majority. Just look at tv. The West Wing and now this Geena Davis President show. Its a Liberal fantasy world and they wonder why the heartland doesn’t respect and basically laughs when a Hollywood type speaks up on issues.
Don,
I get your gist that there are more films that lean left than right. But I think a big point that you and CG are missing is that even though this is a movie blog, if you going to bring politics into it, then you have to accept that movies are not just in a cultural vacuum.
I can remember when Farenheit 9/11 came out, last June. I saw it with a (probably) leftist Chicago audience. They cheered, clapped, and cried at times. Was not a perfect movie, by any means, hell, I would say that it’s not even Moore’s best film. But at the end, you could feel the catharsis that this film provided. After about 18 months of almost unblemished pro-Bush-at-all-costs wall-to-wall coverage from the mainstream media, this film was a welcome oasis.
You can’t just ignore the Coulter’s, Limbaugh’s, and O’ Reilly’s, precisely because they have been dominating the media, for years, even the media they are not a part of. This is a media that has been cowed by the Bush White House since they took office and it is prevalent, EVERYWHERE. On 24 hour news channels, newspapers, music, radio, you name it. So, YEAH, you look at movies and you don’t see it as dominant. But it’s dominating the culture, for sure.
Sure, we all love the power of movies, but if you’re going to tell me that a few films, mainly one popular documentary, is a strong counter and even equally prevalent to years of continuous propaganda and right-wing agendas in the mainstream media (just look at the coverage of the Pope’s death, Reagan’s death, Terry Schiavo, the swift boat veterans, how little attention Ahmad Chalabi got as the Bush’s go-to guy in Iraq for two years, etc.), you’re kidding yourself. That’s why we narrowly lost last year’s election. Even the electorate that was considering voting against Bush, had it on faith from the news media, that he was “tougher on terrorism,”, “strong”, “resolute,” and lots of other hyperbole that a few months of Kerry’s half-assed campaigning, and negative media coverage of it, was never going to be able to beat that.
And when you realize how blurred the lines have become between news and entertainment, at this point, it even becomes tougher to just isolate movies, CG.
Are Brit Hume or Rush Limbaugh any less entertainers than Michael Moore or Whoopi Goldberg, at this point? Have you watched Fox News? It’s an endless array of pundits shouting at each other, and lots of pretty colored graphics. And sad to say, so are CNN and MSNBC, at this point, too.
What I’m trying to say, CG, is that if you’re going to get upset about a few movies that lean left, and how they are pushing an agenda, you have to look at the whole media world, out there, right now. Because, trust me, this media is on YOUR side, right now.
Amazing how conservatives can Republicans can still keep complaining, when their guys have all the power in every branch of government AND pretty much control the media.
And if you think they don’t, answer me this? How come after almost two decades of being a successful comedian and probably a few years after the height of his popularity did Dennis Miller ALL OF A SUDDEN finally get his own news talk show, after he started campaigning for Bush? I’ll tell you why…..because MSNBC had sagging ratings and needed to start pushing their own pro-Bush talking head to keep up with the right-leaning joneses, namely Fox News.
The fact is it’s YOUR world, CG, we just live in it, right now. As a conservative, you will never enjoy a time where your point of view is so dominating the cultural landscape. Enjoy it while it lasts, because trust me, it will end.
The American public can only ignore bullshit for so long. And when more of them start getting headaches from the newscasts they are watching at the dinner table, due to all the yelling about “liberal pinheads”, realize that gay marriage ban initiatives are not helping to put their kids through college, and start to wonder why we still have troops in Iraq AND higher gas prices, several years later than they thought, well then you’ll start to see a sea change.
Fox News ratings have actually been down, this year, so maybe it is finally starting:)
Right wings dominate the media because they actually have views and things to say and entertain their audience. The Left should try it before they complain and bash the Right.
Sorry about the long pseudo-rant, but it just bugs me when conservatives complaing about how their point of view is getting short shrift. Maybe 12 years ago, they might have had a legitimate grip, but now? Forget it.
Terrence,
I agree with your point about how conservatives can create a more entertaining program than liberals. But isn’t a lot of their most entertaining content geared towards liberal-bashing and complaining?
Would Limbaugh and Coulter even have careers if they weren’t spending hours and/or pages of their content complaining about the liberal media, feminists, etc?
No doubt, complaining CAN be entertaining, but let’s not dress it up as something else. Did you watch the coverage of the tsunami damage on Fox News? Hannity and the bunch of them looked completely flummoxed, because they had no reporters, in that part of the world, (Fox News prides itself on keeping almost of all of its reporters stateside) and because they couldn’t complain about anything. It was an epic tragedy and all most of them ended up doing was spending much of their airtime bashing the UN for its relief efforts.
Views and things to say? Sure, but to use David’s favorite expression, in those cases, the emperor really doesn’t have any clothes.
What are their views Terence? They never have anything of substance to say. They just scream and yell and say that all liberals are bad and love terrorists. Now, I agree that they can be entertaining at times (in very small doses), but don’t try to tell me that they actually have anything valuable to say. I have seen the shows. I’m not saying the left is any better when it comes to their mouthpieces, but come on, get real.
In short, CG is darn mad at Hollywood for refusing to make movies that mirror his political beliefs. Okay. Sorry about that. Hey, if nothing else, you’ve got talk radio.
You know, for all the talk about liberal bias in Hollywood, the only targeted example I ever hear conservatives whine about repeatedly (including on the blog) is “Fahrenheit 9/11.” You never hear anyone utter with a straight face any gripes about all the other films or series that have come out since the cultural revolution of the ’60s and ’70s. When was the last time you heard anybody questioning the meritorious value (or values) of all the counterculture films produced in the wake of the Vietnam War? Or the zeitgest touchstones created by Oliver Stone? Anybody have anything but appreciation and nostalgia for “M*A*S*H” or “All in the Family”? Of course, I could go on and on. My point is that, ridiculous as it now seems, all of those now-embraced films, artists and shows used to be the ones in the conservative crosshairs. Yet who on this blog would deny them their cemented place in history now?
It’s really time that conservatives let go of this irrelevent claim of liberal bias in the film industry. If anything, the left-leaning films and shows produced by Hollywood have stood the test of time and, of greater importance, have portrayed and documented the best of what this country represents. It has been the export of those progressive values and expressive freedoms that have always made the United States the leader, role model and envy of the civilized world – and the bain of the repressive regimes and cultures our government now seems intent on emulating.
Here’s something else to chew on: Forget about Hollywood. How many great works of art throughout history have ever expounded what could be considered uniquely right-wing values? Give me the names of some great conservative plays. Or paintings. Or music. Or novels. (And no, the “Left Behind” series doesn’t count.) Got more than a handful?
Maybe Hollywood is perceived to have a liberal bias because conservatives as a general rule are incapable of creating real art. Maybe the embodiment of a true artistic spirit is anathema to conservative values. If so, that leaves conservatives with little more than their traditional role in the world of art:
Censoring it.
stella knows best. he works for al franken and he knows he has a lot of things of substance to say everyday. besides the sound of chirping of crickets from his audience
Chester, I have read some really dumb things before. But to say the only great works of art, movies, books, etc are done by left leaning Liberals is utterly absurd and takes the cake for dumbest comment I have read. You should feel honored as a left leaning Liberal, you have created some great art in the dumb category. I commend you.
OK, joefitz84, you’ve followed the right-wing handbook’s instructions to always insult your opponent and completely dodge his/her questions. Now, how about addressing the challenge I posed: Name the great conservative works of art.
More than an hour has passed (which is an eternity on this blog) and still nobody’s come up with a single example of conservative art. Pretty amazing, huh? Apparently, even cavemen had a greater portfolio of work.
what did he dodge chester? u didn’t ask any questions. u just said the left is more talented than the right and joe basically told u that ur a dumbass. u using the stella school of arguing now, chest?
More pathetic dodges and unfounded insults from the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth right-wingers. You didn’t see me ask any questions, bicycle-boob? How about the one I’m going to spell out for you in really big letters so you can’t miss it this time: CAN YOU NAME MORE THAN A HANDFUL OF EXAMPLES OF CONSERVATIVE ART?
…two hours and counting…
Chester, conservatives are probably working harder than you during the day, and are too busy to respond. But since I’m free now at 5:01, let me take a crack at it – you seem to think that ideas such as fairness, kindness and love are strictly liberal values, when they are quite universal. It is only your short-sighted view of “conservative = hate” that is blinding you to the reality that universal art – material that draws people of all political and social persuasions – tends to be the most revered and remembered.
Yeah that’s right. Liberals don’t have jobs. Only conservatives work. bob, look at your recent posts here. All you have done is insult me and throw some names around. How does that contribute to the discussion? What is the point exactly? And why do you keep dodging Chester’s questions, which he’s repeated over and over again?
Agree with Joe Fitz. Chester thats your second ridiculous comment this week. That even beats out your main man, Stella’s Lady. Congrats!
But does it beat you Mark? That I doubt. And please, go ahead and answer Chester’s question if you disagree with it so strongly. I’ll be waiting for your prompt reply.
Josh, please show me where I said anything remotely like “ideas such as fairness, kindness and love are strictly liberal values” or “conservative = hate.” Once again, more insults, dodges and flagrant BS from our right-wing spokespeople.
As for your claim that “universal art – material that draws people of all political and social persuasions – tends to be the most revered and remembered,” what a ridiculous bunch of hooey! Are you actually saying that nothing in the libraries and archives brimming with politically charged work produced by overtly left-wing sensibilities – you know, the stuff conservatives complain about all the time – qualifies as art? Do you really want to go on record with a statement like that?
For the fourth or fifth time, I’ll pose my initial query again: How many great works of art throughout history have ever expounded what could be considered uniquely right-wing values? If you have some unholy need to denigrate your opponents, fine. But, just once, let’s see if you can first answer my damn question.
…three hours and counting…
Aside from “M*A*S*H*” and “All in the Family,” exactly what specific titles have you thrown out? Your insight doesn’t exactly blind me when you call upon two overtly outspoken liberals such as Robert Altman and Norman Lear (oh, right, and apparently “Platoon,” which dared to question the Vietnam War, which was obviously entered into by Republicans). Please define the “left-wing sensibilities” you refer to, and perhaps I will be better suited to jump through your obsessive little hoops.
And since I can virtually guarantee you haven’t read Ayn Rand, I won’t bother burdening your mind with her.
“Josh, please show me where I said anything remotely like ‘ideas such as fairness, kindness and love are strictly liberal values’ or ‘conservative = hate.'”
Maybe it was when you said our only role in the arts was censoring them? Or when you said, “(Left-leaning films and shows have) been the export of those progressive values and expressive freedoms that have always made the United States the leader, role model and envy of the civilized world – and the bain of the repressive regimes and cultures our government now seems intent on emulating.”
So again, what are the “progressive values and expressive freedoms” you are referring to, if something else other than fairness, kindness and love?
Hey, everyone – lookee, lookee! Instead of answering the very simple question I’ve asked a gazillion times, Josh is throwing it back in my face and wants ME to come up with examples of left-wing art. Now, what does that tell you?
Well, any culturally aware person could quickly come up with lord-knows-how-many obvious examples of left-wing art off the top of his/her head. But let’s say for argument’s sake that no one could come up with any. Not a single one. Obviously, the only conclusion Josh could derive from that would be that there are no recognized works of left-wing art. Sounds great. Unfortunately for Josh, that would also mean that the notion of a left-wing artistic influence over our culture is an illusion – a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to the conservative party line as well as the main premise we’re all debating on this page.
Nice try, Josh, but you’ve still contributed little more than entertainingly lame dodges. By the way, it’s now approaching five hours and your team has only managed to come up with one author. Not even the itty-bitty handful I requested. Just one. Sheesh, I’ve gotta give you guys credit for not tossing in the old Bushie standby: The Bible. (Not that its inclusion would have any validity on such a partisan list.)
So, Josh, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER THE FRIGGIN’ QUESTION? Really, aren’t you the party that gets all hot and bothered over acts of obstruction? How insultingly brainless do you take readers of this blog to be? When you do nothing more than defensively deflect my questions back at me, don’t you think everyone can see you sweating? If you can only think of one writer, then just say so. Concede the point. Otherwise, you’re just humiliating yourself and your cause.
Look, Chest, bubbie – relax… take a Valium. Breathe. Ok, like I was saying, I can’t answer your question until you define it. I wasn’t asking for you to give me examples of left-wing art – I was asking you to define what separates left from right (ie. the “progressive values and expressive freedoms” you referred to).
If you’re looking for me to get into a cliched argument of tossing “Man of Fire,” “Top Gun” and “The Passion of the Christ” into the mix, you’ve picked the wrong sparring partner.
So please, before another breathless diatribe, please define the “values” and “freedoms” that separate left from right-wing art. If you can’t do that, you’ve proved my original point (scroll way back up) – the majority of beloved art is, in fact, universal, not clinging to one political thought process.
Josh, based on what you just posted, you continue to be the one who’s completely missing the boat. If you need me to define left-wing art for you, then you are in no position to stand by your party’s claim that there is a left-wing artistic influence dominating our culture. That’s totally OK. If you don’t think there is such an influence, then just say so. If you dare.
From my end of the spectrum, I dared. I dared say that conservatives have not had much of an artistic influence over our culture. I believe the right wing’s influence has come almost exclusively from the political, financial and religious fronts, not the artistic ones. If you don’t agree, then please: ANSWER MY FRIGGIN’ QUESTION!
By the way, Josh, I never picked you as a sparring partner. As everyone can see, you entered the ring and started throwing punches at me all by yourself.
If you want confirmation that conservative thought and influence has dictated what has actually made this country work for the past 229 years (political, financial), then yes, I grant you that.
If you want me to say that great works of art such as “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” are liberal, I will disagree. Ideas such as racial equality, humanity and decency are not traits that the left can call their own.
Can I attest to the personal philosophy of every writer I have ever read, every director whose films I have laid eyes on, each artist whose work has sat in front of my eyes? No. If that makes you sleep better at night, God speed. However, asking me to list conservative paintings, etc. (as you did above) is an asinine task.
You seem to think that works of art that espouse compassion make them “liberal,” or books that contain subversive imagery make them “progressive.” That is a very short-sighted view, one that speaks to your obviously narrow and ill-informed view of conservative thought. It might shock you, but we’re all not Bible-beating, abortion clinic-bombing, “World According to Jim”-watching rednecks.
Alright, well if makes you feel any better, I’m off to watch Joel Schumacher’s “The Phantom of the Opera.” It might serve as the kick in the crotch you may want to give me anyway.
Josh, where did I ever say anything remotely like “Ideas such as racial equality, humanity and decency are…traits that the left can call their own.” Or “works of art that espouse compassion make them ‘liberal,’ or books that contain subversive imagery make them ‘progressive.’ ” Or that conservatives are all “Bible-beating, abortion clinic-bombing, ‘World According to Jim’-watching rednecks.” YOU’RE THE ONE WHO KEEPS COMPLAINING THAT I HAVEN’T DEFINED LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE ART FOR YOU! So where do you keep getting off putting words in my mouth?
Well, Josh, the only thing you’ve made abundantly clear is that, by your own admission, you don’t know how to identify political art. (Why you even bothered to pursue this argument when you are so in over your head is beyond me.) At least your buddies in the conservative wing have always had a sense of it. That’s why historically they’ve made such a big deal about its subversive nature. And that’s why we continue to have debates like the one that got this page started in the first place.
Meanwhile, my point stands. After about seven and a half hours, no one from this blog’s vast conservative brigade has been able to show me more than one piece of conservative art. I rest my case.
There was a list a few years back of “the top 100 Conservative Movies” from the National Review, I think. It had titles like The Ten Commandments and It’s a Wonderful Life and Sergeant York on it. Try looking it up.
This issue is much too complicated for such simplistic labels as “liberal” or “conservative”. The Ten Commandments is about standing up to oppression and sticking to what you believe in – shouldn’t that make it a liberal movie? Is Beethoven’s third symphony a liberal piece of art because it was written in honor of Napoleon? If you’re a liberal, should you not marvel at a gothic cathedral because it was built by a wealthy and corrupt medieval Church that was selling indulgences? Is Forrest Gump a conservative movie dealing with the follies of the 1960s or something more thoughtful? Is Starship Troopers a conservative warning or a liberal spoof?
The Incredibles was widely thought to be a movie with conservative sympathies/politics (at least among conservatives). I don’t know what others thought. Also, films that feature a clear delineation between good and evil count as conservative.
I found that 100 conservatives movies article from National Review through Google.
Forgot the link.
The html doesn’t seem to be work here.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n20_v46/ai_15905983
Also, the films of Whit Stillman would definitely count.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_urbanities-a_great_conservative.html
You’re missing my point…I’m not trying to divide films up into one camp or the other. I’m saying it’s impossible to do so because art and life are more complex than that, and any film that can be so easily pigeonholed probably isn’t that good to begin with.
And frankly I think a lot of the ideas expressed in that National Review piece are silly. Cecil DeMille, great historian? The seventies as the low point of American cinema?
Thank you Jeffmcm, that’s what I was trying to convey – aside from uber-obvious examples like Michael Moore, art is typically a little more complex than “liberal” or “conservative.” Most human values, it turns out, can be claimed by folks on all points of the political spectrum.
Because Chester refused to name what makes a piece of art “liberal” or “conservative,” I was unable to answer his question. By saying that I provided only one conservative writer, he apparently is claiming the other 99.99999999999% of art as “liberal,” which I find quite astonishing.
But hey, he did get me good by typing IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
chester u made a bad call. live with it.
So tell me something, Josh: If there is no such thing as liberal art, why are conservatives always bellyaching about Hollywood? Why all the politicizing of the arts in general by the right wing? Why are we having the entire discussion on this page at all? All of a sudden you’re making it seem like I just made all this stuff up.
Sure, it should be easy and appropriate to say that any film that presents homosexual couples in a positive light is presenting a humanitarian point of view, not a political one. But that’s not the reality of right-wing politics. Likewise for films that give positive depictions of trial lawyers going up against big corporations. Or Jimmy Stewart filibustering Congress so he can build a Boy Scouts camp. Or all of the protest/hippie music of the ’60s and ’70s. Or the characters crushed by the system in Arthur Miller’s plays. Or any work of art that challenges religious institutions and dogma.
Do I really need to go on, or are you still going to so pathetically deny there is such a thing as left-wing art JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN’T ANSWER MY FRIGGIN’ QUESTION?
So everything is Liberal art because of Arthur Miller’s plays? Another blanket statement with no factual backing. But keep throwing it up there because it keeps getting funnier. The only people who politicize Hollywood is the Left. They think people want to hear what these “stars” have to say and they’re influenced by them. Wrong. People are influenced by their own values and thoughts. Only thing we want from Hollywood is entertainment.
The only people who politicize Hollywood is the left? Now are you making an untrue blanket statement joe. And you are right; many people only want to be entertained. But why do so many on the right, the same people who are supposed to be all about personal accountability, constantly blame social problems on Hollywood and its product? Granted, there are exceptions, like the nitwit Joe Lieberman. But by and large, it is members of the right.
Yet another baseless, inciteful statement by joefitz84 straight out of the radical right-wing playbook. I never said all art is liberal art. I just said there is a lot of liberal art (are you able to comprehend the difference?), while there is almost no noteworthy conservative art to speak of.
More than a day has passed and you guys have offered zilch to prove me wrong. That’s pretty shameful.
Chester, you’ve set the terms of debate in such a way that there can be no such thing as ‘good conservative art’ because according to you if it’s good, it’s liberal. Therefore any good movie that the conversatives might claim, like, say, It’s a Wonderful Life, you take away from them and reclaim as liberal, and any movies that cannot be claimed as liberal, say Rambo, you would consider to be bad. There’s no winning with you.
If you want to get into generalities, I think you can argue that yes, there is a liberal bent to much of the media, because movies typically portray gays positively and explore hazy areas of morality and so on. But there is also a conservative bent to the media, every time society’s dominant paradigms are upheld or in every action movie where killing the main bad guy solves everyone’s problems. Hollywood is ultimately about money and, despite Michael Moore, films typically don’t make money by going out on a political limb.
I’m a left-of-center guy myself and I think it’s silly to limit the debate to painting everything with one of two colors.
hey chest its ur job to prove ur dumb as bricks statement. everyone else is just saying ur idiot and u haven’t disproved that yet have u?
No, not everyone is saying Chester is an idiot. You do not speak for anyone but yourself bob. And I’d love for you to answer my question. The one I posted at 12:55 PM.
why is lieberman a nitwit? because he doesn’t kowtow to hollywood? or hes pro defense? or that fact that hes pro israel? is he not true blue lib enough for u, stella?
I am also saying Chester is a moron. Stella’s Boy, I thought you were reasonable and thought for yourself. You’re going to agree with what Chester has said here the past two days? Just because you have blind hatred for Bike Bob?
jeffmcm, when did I ever say “if it’s good, it’s liberal.” What you fail to recognize or acknowledge is that the sheer, obvious, clear-cut righteousness of a work of art, its characters or its outcome does not render it bipartisan. Just as one current example, we are living in times when Republican leaders are calling any traditional congressional filibuster an undemocratic act of obstructionism by the left. What can we conclude from that? That by right-wing standards, the rousing climax of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” has a leftist bent. Maybe it’s just too damn bad that history and art have usually depicted conservatives and conservatism as bad, but at the same time you can’t have it both ways by appropriating our heralded work as your own.
I am not reclaiming anything as liberal. These things were liberal from the outset. As I pointed out in my first post, the fact that most of American society now casually accepts these things as the inoffensive norm only bolsters my point that progressive, left-wing values are what have patriotically carried this country forward and made it the envy of the civilized world.
More liberals _should_ take on the media or celebrities when they do stupid things. The right raises hell about gays “destroying the institution of marriage” but nobody said a peep when Britney Spears got married and divorced in 48 hours.
Plus, the Democratic Party gets a lot more campaign money from Hollywood.
And yes, on many issues Lieberman is a nitwit.
Terence, funny how you never mention bi-bob’s blind hatred for me. Why is that? It’s all one-sided in your eyes? Why are you always defending him? I never said I agreed with Chester, but he has a point: no one has stepped up and answered his first question. Why is that? I would really like someone to list examples of great conservative art. I am not saying it doesn’t exist. I’m just really curious to see what that list would look like.
Chester, I don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore. History and art have not usually depicted conservatives and conservatism as bad. If anything it’s the other way around. Like I said, any movie that upholds dominant paradigms can be seen as conservative. That applies to about 90% of Hollywood movies, including almost all action movies and romantic comedies.
Thank you jeff. I have never understood that, how the right can go on and on about preserving the sanctity of marriage and yet they don’t say a word about how easy it is to get married and divorced in this country.
jeffmcm, with all due respect, please make an effort to read and comprehend what I write before posting rebuttals. I gave a very specific example of a classic populist film that clearly cuts against what has become the conservative party line, which you completely ignored – and you know damn well I could give you many more. If you “don’t know what [I’m] arguing about anymore,” maybe you need to stop and spend a little more time digesting all of my words before blindly firing back at me.
Here’s some damn examples of what I think conservatives would claim as ‘conservative art’. The paintings of Winslow Homer and Norman Rockwell. Charles Schulz’s “Peanuts”. The Beatles song “Taxman” and Springsteen’s “Born in the USA”. The Statue of Liberty. And movies from Ninotchka to Star Wars to Saving Private Ryan.
You’re expecting ‘conservative art’ to be similar to Nazi/Fascist art that was upheld in the 30s and was typically bland and uninteresting. That makes it a lot easier to demonize your opposition as dumb and uncultured. American society is richer and more complex than you’re giving it credit for.
Like I said, I’m a left-wing guy, and it bugs me to have had to argue this side of things.
Your argument about Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is on-target, and it is pertinent that there is not a consistent ideology on the right today as evidenced by that movie.
But so what? Your overall argument is still shallow and reductive, and it proves my point, that things are always changing and the sands are shifting and things are more complex than you want to allow them to be.
jeff, I was never of the opinion that conservative art does not exist, or that conservatives do not produce great art. Personally, I’m just curious as to what specifically people perceive to be conservative works of art, film or otherwise.
I wasn’t addressing the Nazi argument at you, I was addressing it at Chester.
Sigh. Once again, jeffmcm, when did I ever say that I’m “expecting ‘conservative art’ to be similar to Nazi/Fascist art that was upheld in the 30s and was typically bland and uninteresting.” Why is it that everyone here repeatedly feels the need to put words in my mouth rather than just address what I’ve actually written?
Meanwhile, I applaud you for your choice of The Beatles’s “Taxman.” Now we’re up to a grand total of two uniquely conservative-themed works of art. But you’re going to have to explain to me how any of the rest cut against left-wing party-line beliefs. How dare you so dangerously suggest that the Statue of Liberty represents any values that liberals don’t embrace? And, believe it or not, I find even more astonishing your flagrantly ignorant choice of “Born in the U.S.A.” Wow! Anyone who knows anything about it is aware that Bruce Springsteen gave President Reagan a good whipping for trying to appropriate that as a Republican theme song.
Every piece of good art is Liberal. Chester says it so it must be the truth.
I never said these were exclusively conservative pieces of art, because I don’t think there can be any such thing.
A conservative can love “Born in the U.S.A.” regardless of whether Springsteen objected to its use or not…which I’m sure was a more complex issue than you’re suggesting. And I don’t see a lot of modern artists emulating the Statue Liberty. They tend to prefer to follow in the mode of Picasso or Pollock.
Again, you have some good points, but your argument is destroyed by (a) your desire to make everything simplistic, black-and-white, and reductive, and (b) your unpleasant attitude.
Goodbye.
jeffmcm, might I politely suggest you try to remove whatever bug has entrenched itself in your ass? I mean, what is your problem here?
Let’s review: This is a page dedicated to the debatable notion that liberals have too much influence over the films produced by Hollywood. If so, that feeds into the widely perceived belief that the films produced by Hollywood, as well as most other forms of art, have a liberal bent. So I posed the following challenge: Assuming liberals are guilty as charged, is there anyone who can please direct me to the alternative, perhaps underappreciated, fine art that represents a uniquely conservative perspective?
Throughout the ensuing debate, I have maintained the following consistent position. Either conservatives here should:
a) present to me my requested examples of uniquely conservative art; or
b) admit there isn’t, or at least you aren’t aware of, much conservative art; or
c) if you deny the basic premise of my argument – that the amount of liberal art overwhelms that produced by conservatives – then you therefore must rationally concede that the whole notion of liberal influence over our art and entertainment is nonsensical, and therefore this repeated incendiary mantra by conservatives is just a bunch of bullshit.
Now, jeffmcm, review all of that carefully before responding. Then explain to me why any of that pisses you off so much.
I’m back. I guess I have to say that the whole page is pointless because I believe that most movies have a conservative bent. You win. Happy?
jeffmcm, the fact that conservatives can love liberal art does not make the art any less liberal. And what does what modern artists choose to emulate have to do with whether a work is liberal or conservative? Are you saying that all of today’s art is liberal?
As for “Born in the USA,” you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. The whole Reagan debacle is universally recognized as the line of demarcation after which Springsteen proudly became a political activist for the left.
I agree with the original posting that Hollywood political movies are too simplistic. I haven’t seen Kingdom of Heaven, but if it’s as simple as it sounds then that’s too bad.
I agree with your argument about the right complaining more than they should about liberal bias. But then you had to go one step farther and say that liberal artists are the only ones that have mattered in history, and that’s what I have a problem with.
Let me put it this way…have you seen a Stanley Kramer movie lately? Undeniably liberal, but also boring, preachy, and irrelevant to modern times.
Re: Chester’s last post. You insist that any good, love-worthy piece of art is inherently liberal. THAT’S what I’m arguing against. You deny the possibility of any good conservative art by subsuming goodness into liberalism. It’s impossible to find good conservative art if all good art is inherently liberal, as you suggest.
Here’s another example. I love the movie Master and Commander. It’s very well-made. What values does it uphold? The hierarchy of the Navy, respect for tradition, belief that a commander is the source of wisdom for his subordinates. Those are traditionally conservative values. As a liberal, should I then dislike this movie? That’s what you seem to be suggesting.
The original posting was not merely saying that Hollywood’s movies are too simplistic. It was saying that Hollywood presents a distorted liberal view of the world.
Second, my argument has never been about liberal vs. conservative artists. It has been about liberal vs. conservative art. Hardly the same thing.
And I never suggested liberal art is the only art that matters. What I suggested was that conservative art may not really exist. Once again, a gargantuan difference. But I think there’s a vast, endless world of non-political art that is as important as anything mankind has ever produced.
Hollywood depicts a distorted view of the world, period. How distorted depends on your own personal biases.
Conservative art exists because anything that conservatives truly claim as their own is, bango, conservative art. I’m perfectly happy to let the conservatives have The Ten Commandments, and just because a conservative might not understand the lyrics of Born in the USA doesn’t mean they couldn’t claim it.
And, depending on how deep you go, all art is political, even if it’s defined by it’s lack of political interest.
jeffmcm, I just finished reading your 3:20 post, and I’m done talking to you. For the umpteenth time, you continue to put words in my mouth and attribute to me opinions that I have never put forward (i.e, your entire first paragraph). You also just plain don’t get my endlessly repeated point about UNIQUELY conservative art, which upon endless repetition only makes you look a struggling child with a learning disability. That’s more than I care to deal with, and I’m not here to babysit you. We’re done.
You’re the goddamn idiot. There is no such thing as uniquely conservative art, uniquely liberal art, or any art that is uniquely of any persuation. Art is too complex for that and I’ve been repeating it over and over again.
Jeffmcm, if you’re ever in Atlanta, I owe you a beer. You’ve made many of my points much clearer than I did.
Really, Josh? That’s the clarification you’ve been waiting for? Sounds like the ultimate cop-out to me. Neither one of you could come up with an answer after almost two days, so what’s your solution? “There is no such thing as uniquely liberal or conservative art.”
Well, so much for the right-wing’s claim of Hollywood’s leftist influence on our culture. Furthermore, I think that answer would come as quite an eye-opening surprise to anyone familiar with a great deal of the work of artists like Woody Guthrie, Bruce Springsteen, Simon & Garfunkel, Public Enemy, Rage Against the Machine, John Steinbeck, Arthur Miller, Tony Kushner, Martin Ritt, Paddy Chayefsky, Oliver Stone, Joseph Heller, Robert Altman, Bryan Singer, Aaron Sorkin, Elia Kazan, Tim Robbins…and the list goes on and on. And I compiled that just from taking a quick glance at what’s near my desk.
Enjoy each other’s company in Atlanta. You’re a perfect match. In fact, you may as well make it a convention of morons and invite Mark, bicycle bob, joe fitz and Terrence D. Not a working brain cell among any of you. I guess that’s why you were all so worried about the outcome of the Terry Schiavo case.
By the way, if any of you had focused your energies on actual intellectual engagement instead of slandering me, you might have come up with “Dirty Harry.” I don’t agree with Pauline Kael that the film was fascistic, but it was certainly a brilliant work of right-wing art. And the fact that a left-leaning person like me appreciates and embraces its appeal doesn’t make the film’s slant any less conservative.
Chester:
(1) I’M A LIBERAL, somewhat like you. We probably agree on more than one might think.
(2) Of your examples, all are definitely liberal writers/musicians/filmmakers but none live up to some fantasy platonic ideal that you’ve imagined. Why are Altman’s MASH and Chayefsky’s Network so sexist? Why do Oliver Stone’s movies linger so much over the responsibilities of patriarchy? Did Kazan make On the Waterfront as a defiant stand against his detractors over his HUAC testimonies?
LIFE AND ART ARE TOO COMPLEX TO FIT INTO ONE CATEGORY. How many times must I repeat it?
The reason you, and I, enjoy Dirty Harry is because its ideology is more complex than mere right-wingery. Yes, it assails liberalism for being too lenient on crooks. But it also offers a complex tangle of religious symbolism, conflicted performances, and anguish over the situation it portrays. Plus it’s rated R with typically brutal Hollywood violence, which means that a lot of conservatives wouldn’t want to watch it. It has a slant but it is not a uniquely conservative film.
What “fantasy platonic ideal” have I imagined? Where do you pull this mindless, self-serving BS from? My personal ideals and convictions are not even the issue, so stop pretending you know what they are. What is at play here is any given piece of work’s overall sensibility. If you cannot recognize that much of the work of the artists I listed above conveys an overall liberal sensibility by pretty much any objective standard, then I’m sorry but I simply cannot respect your cognitive abilities and we should leave it at that.
Finally, you presumed to know why I like “Dirty Harry,” and as always you got it 100% wrong. Here’s the real reason: Because even a left-leaning Democrat like me can admit enjoying a disarmingly well-done fantasy where the bad guys get blown away after exploiting every chink in the system – even if the fantasy’s themes and resolutions don’t reflect my own personal philosophy or the kind of world I want to live in.
If all you’re arguing is that some films and pieces of art convey an “overall sensibility” of one political persuasion or another…then there’s no argument and this has all been a big waste of time. Wasn’t there some other thing you were trying to prove?
Oh yeah, that there was no such thing as great conservative art. I named about ten examples of what a conservative would call great art and you said they were really all liberal. Well, I guess this has become a circular argument. Clear up the debate if you want to continue, I don’t think we’re communicating properly.
PS: I hate Bush.
I read over this blog again to figure things out and the truth is that I really do agree with almost everything you say, Chester. The exception that I take is with the condescending smugness that you have presented ever since you started your primary argument. I admit that I’ve been guilty of name-calling too and I apologize. But it’s because of liberals like you that the Democratic party has lost touch with the middle ground of American life and lost the last two elections. People said that Michael Moore cost Kerry as many votes as he might have gained for him and I feel the same way about you.
Best wishes.
I guess one person’s “condescending smugness” is another person’s “rational and factual.” Funny how on this blog the people who take the time to really make their cases are treated like insufferable assholes, while the goons are just viewed as part of the wallpaper.
And whom are you kidding? Kerry lost because he was perceived as indecisive and weak. He was slow to respond to personal and professional attacks – whenever he bothered to respond at all. (Can you seriously say the same thing about me?) People in this country do not want a president who is slow to respond to attacks – especially not during a time of war. The whole “blame Michael Moore” scapegoating cop-out is something we’ve come to expect from the bicycle bobs and Marks on this blog, not someone like you who identifies himself as a liberal. (Honestly, though, throughout this whole argument you’ve taken a passionately defensive stance about virtually everything conservative. Maybe it’s time you went out for those beers with Josh and came out of the Republican closet.)
Finally, at the risk of condescending smugness again, I really hope that next time you’ll actually read and digest what I’ve written before spending two days pointlessly attacking me. I’ve spent a great deal of time trying to deal with the facts and issues. By your own admission above, you’ve spent the same time focused on trying to knock me down a few pegs. So maybe the problem isn’t really that I’m condescending and smug. Maybe it’s that you need to feel superior and controlling. What that says about your conduct here, not mine, is pretty ugly.
It entertains me that for as much as Chester knows he’s right, he’s the one getting frustrated – typing in all caps, throwing out “brain cell” insults, and even invoking Terri Schiavo (all the while accusing us of forming his opinions for him). Hell, I’m surprised I haven’t had to invoke Godwin’s Law yet.
Chester you really are the biggest boob here. You really must like hearing yourself talk. You must be a pleasure to hear defend himself in real life.
I wish I could say I was entertained by Chester. But he just comes off as a know it all who yells and screams. And his points just aren’t good enough. They are out of left field.
You’ve got to be kidding, Chester. The endeavors of Public Enemy, Rage Against the Machine, Tony Kushner, Martin Ritt, Bryan Singer, Aaron Sorkin, and Tim Robbins qualify as “great works of art through out history”? I hadn’t realized that the bar was set so laughably low. As for some of your other examples, Elia Kazan has been persona no grata with the Left since he testified against them at the HUAC. Don’t you remember the Academy Awards show about 5 years ago when half the members of the audience looked like they wanted to rush the stage and lynch Elia while Scorsese and De Niro were giving him his Lifetime Achievement Oscar? One old Hollywood Lefty even gave an interview before the show during which he stated openly that he sincerely hoped someone would have the courage to assassinate Kazan on live TV as an example to other traitors. And John Steinbeck has long been sneered at in liberal literary circles because his stories are considered too plebian. You can’t suddenly claim him now, either. See we can both play this game of discredit the other’s list.
With regards to your list of options for Conservatives on this site, you forgot option d) concede that currently there are far more liberal artists and liberal slanted artworks produced, and then point to that finding as evidence of systematic discrimination against conservative artists (sort of a variation of the argument being used against colleges packed with Leftist profs.).
Leon, what would you use as an example of discrimination against a conservative artist? And is that why there isn’t more conservative art being produced? Are there just not as many conservative artists, or are they just not allowed to express themselves because of systematic discrimination? I’m truly interested in pursuing this.
I think you can round up 100 artists and ask them are you Liberal or Conservative and more than 75% will have no answer for you. They let their work do the talking and don’t want it influenced by their own views. People like Stella’s Boy refuse to believe that about artists. Instead they want to believe anyone creative is a Left thinker. Which is totally erroneous.
Terence, disagree with me all you want. That I have no problem with. But stop lying. I do have a problem with you making things up and putting words in my mouth. Never once did I say that only people on the left are creative thinkers. I never said it. I didn’t allude to it. OK? Is that too much to ask of you? And my post at 8:15 was perfectly reasonable. I was attempting to engage Leon (and anyone else) in an honest, serious discussion. Is that OK with you?
stella quit lying. everyone sees it. u have defended chesters idiotic statement here for three days. so quit the lying. u put ur foot in ur mouth
bob, you need to back that up. Prove it. How am I lying? Specifically. Don’t just accuse me of it. Don’t just call me a liar. Use evidence to back up that claim. Guess what? You won’t be able to. This is what happens when someone tries to engage someone else in a serious discussion around here. Certain people start calling you names. bob, seriously, let’s just call a truce and move on. OK?
if u read my post i stated why. all u have done is defend what chester said. what did chest say? that only liberals are great artists and conservatives can’t compete. so now take that size 6 shoe out of ur mouth and learn to read and follow along
Hold on people! We got a Liberal trying to take both side of the argument. I can’t believe it!
bob, you haven’t proven a thing. You have made an accusation, that is all. You have not backed up your accusation with any proof. I did not make any such statement. So, again, where is your proof? If you don’t have any, then please, stop putting words into my mouth. joefitz, what are you talking about?
bob, like I said above, I am really tired of all the back and forth, and I would like to put an end to it.
Stella’s Boy is pretty typical of how they argue. But I really thought he was more sensible than this. He has gone off on tangents defending Chesters reasoning than when push comes to shove he steps away from it and denies it. I just can’t take that seriously.
How many times can Stella’s Boy avoid the real question? I figure he’ll never own up to defending Chesters statement. I’m out on a limb with that one though!
Terence and joefitz, I can only conclude that you guys are persisting with this for your own amusement. Where are my tangents? What is the real question? I won’t own up to anything that I did not do. Would you guys? Either back up your statements with proof, or drop it. Simple as that. Use evidence from my posts, or admit that you are wrong here. And Terence, this is typical of how “they” argue (meaning you, bob, Mark and others like you). You make accusations, and then you never back them up. You label people and claim they said things that they never said. You put words into their mouth over and over again. Once again, prove it, or drop it. You have flat-out lied Terence. Are you comfortable with that?
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that joefitz will just call me a name and completely ignore everything I said.
theres a better chance of paul shore winning an oscar than stella apologizing for what he tried to argue. not even son in law pauly shore. i’m talking jury duty pauly
Its fairly obvious Stella’s Girl just likes arguing for arguing sake. She doesn’t even know what shes even defending anymore. Don’t worry. It’ll turn personal pretty quick. You will see Stella’s girl hurl those personal insults any second now.
YOU’RE ALL NAZIS!
Ok, Godwin’s Law. Thread over.
Josh is write… sealing this one up…