PDF 
The only explanation I can come up with to explain those who deny Hollywood’s left-wing agenda is that they want to remain on the “Above the Line” cocktail party invite list. Either that or they are lying to themselves, and are nothing more than useful idiots to left-wing ideologues.
The Washington Post recently reported on Hollywood’s turn toward films promoting spiritual themes. The litany of spiritual themed movies includes Avatar, The Road, The Invention of Lying, The Lovely Bones, The Blind Side, The Book of Eli, Legion, and The Last Station. While many might pause at the “spirituality” the Dream Factory promotes in some of these films, I was struck by this opening quote from Greg Wright, editor at HollywoodJesus.com:
“The more paranoid elements of our culture tend to think Hollywood has a proactive agenda, that producers have a grand scheme to use movies to shape the thinking of audiences. I don’t subscribe to that school. I believe that Hollywood gives audiences what audiences want to see. If people don’t want to see movies with certain messages, they won’t buy tickets. So if there’s a trend out there, it’s one reflecting what people are already thinking and feeling.” [Emphasis added]
Has Mr. Wright been so long in Hollywood that he is no longer aware of the waters within which he swims? Declaring that Hollywood does not have “a proactive agenda” and does not want “to shape the thinking of audiences” is like declaring MSNBC is an unbiased news source and Chris Matthews does not care if Pres. Obama is a grand success as POTUS.
Hollywood only gives people what they want? How then, does Mr. Wright explain film after film attacking American motives in the Iraqi front of the war against Islamo-nazism, which the American public nearly uniformly rejected? Theaters were inundated with left-wing, anti-war films: Redacted, In the Valley of Ellah, Lions for Lambs, The Manchurian Candidate 2004 remake, Battle for Haditha, and Syriana, just to name a few. Almost across the board, these projects were financial failures, and yet Hollywood kept producing them.
Maybe Mr. Wright has spent so much time in prayer that he’s missed Hollywood’s embrace of Michael Moore and his anti-American diatribes or Al Gore and his global warming hysteria. The Academy gave Oscars to these two men whose films were built on lies, fabrications and manipulated interviews.
As John Nolte noted, at BigHollywood.com, in a blistering take down of another Hollywood defender, “I guess five self-mocking titles over nearly two decades somehow trumps the full court press of 15 or so (and counting) anti-war movies we’ve seen in just two years “mocking” our country and, most unforgivably, those who defend it. “
Hollywood does not have “a proactive agenda” or wish “to shape the thinking of audiences?” What planet is Greg Wright living on?
James Cameron has effectively stated that he was not attempting to be subtle with Avatar’s messages:
[T]here’s a conscious attempt to evoke even Vietnam era imagery, with the way the guys jump off the helicopters and so on. It’s a way of connecting a thread through history. I take that thread farther back, and I sure like to have a little historical memory that goes back farther than that to the 17th, 16th centuries and how the Europeans pretty much took over South, Central and North America and displaced and marginalised the indigenous peoples there. … We had a tendency to just take what we want without asking, as Jake says. … There’s a sense of entitlement – we’re here, we’re big, we’ve got the guns, we’ve got the technology, we’ve got the brains, therefore we’re entitled to every damn thing on this planet. And that’s not how it works, and we’re going to find out the hard way if we don’t wise up and start seeking a life that’s in balance with the natural cycles of life on Earth.”[Emphasis added]
According to Mr. Wright this does not encapsulate “a proactive agenda,” nor is Cameron attempting to “to shape the thinking of audiences.” And if you disagree then you are simply among the “more paranoid elements of our culture.”
Then count me among the paranoid. Hollywood has a very specific, proactive, left-wing agenda. Denying this fact surrenders the culture to the Left and prohibits the creation of a culture of liberty. I am befuddled as to why a confessed Christian would engage in this kind of behavior, though I am not surprised. It takes a very strong personality to resist Hollywood’s pressure to conform.
Strong personalities are desperately needed in the Cultural Influence Professions during these times. We cannot expect to produce a population that honors and builds respect for liberty and personal responsibility as long as we deny the obvious. The more creators who respect and honor America’s foundational values retreat from the entertainment professions, the more the agenda of men and women like James Cameron, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Barbara Streisand, etc. will dominate our culture.
OK, Greg, if there is no “Hollywood Left” then please explain the treatment Cyrus Nowrasteh received over his mini-series “The Path to 9/11.” The Disney/ABC acquiesced to political pressure from the Left and forced Nowrasteh to cut scenes left-wing politicians didn’t like.
And explain why that same company refuses to release an incredibly popular, widely watched mini-series for public consumption in DVD, a release that would very likely reap massive financial gain.
No Hollywood Left? I guess it is just a matter of differing “artistic visions.”
If you play around with Cameron’s qoute, you can see it as the lamentation of a conservative artist directed at Hollywood’s lock-step liberals:
“There’s a sense of[LIBERAL/LEFTTIST] entitlement – [WE'VE BEEN HERE AND IN CONTROL FOR A LONG TIME], we’re big, we’ve got the [MONEY],we’ve got the technology, we’ve got the brains[?], therefore we’re entitled to every damn thing on this planet. And that’s not how it works, and we’re going to find out the hard way if we don’t wise up and start seeking a [CULTURAL] life that’s in balance with the natural cycles of [DIVERSE WORLDVIEWS] on Earth.”
You can’t really be serious with this:
“Every time I speak publicly on film, I reference Bergman’s idea that audiences surrender the will and intellect when they buy a ticket.”
Surrender the will and intellect?!? I’ll be honest to not being familiar with the context in which Bergman made that assertion.
In other words, when I buy a ticket I should become nothing more than a mindless sponge to absorb whatever is about to happen on screen? I pray that is a joke. If not, and I don’t care how great a filmmaker you believe Bergman to be, that is the most idiotic assertion I have ever heard anyone make.
“When we experience a film, we consciously prime ourselves for illusion. Putting aside will and intellect, we make way for it in our imagination. The sequence of pictures plays directly on our feelings.” Ingmar Bergman, Introduction to Four Screenplays, 1960.
It’s not that you “should become a mindless sponge” — it’s that, to some extent, you can’t help it because of the power of the art.
It’s the power that Cameron depends on to achieve his ends with Avatar. Pretty simple stuff.
It’s funny that I can affirm the attempt to influence and control thought — and specific instances where there’s no question filmmakers have that in mind (Michael Moore, anyone?) — but if I don’t subscribe to the vague conception of a Hollywood Left then I’m in some kind of denial.
The Path to 9/11 is a counterpoint to what happened with Fahrenheit 9/11, Daniel. The Reagan TV doc was scrubbed, too. All are self-explanatory. Parties get offended, pressure comes to bear. Marketing types make calls about what will sell best, given the circumstances. Cuts both ways. (If the conservative influence were entirely powerless, I’d pretty much have to concede the theory, of course.)
And no, you won’t find me using the term “Christian Right” in any meaningful way, either. It’s a convenient label used by the left to discredit specific individuals as irrelevant.
Does that make me a Christian Right denier, too? Cool. I love being caught in the middle.
Hollywood.
Jesus.
Make everyone unhappy.
See ya, guys. Been fun, if a bit like chasing tails. I’ll check back in to answer specific questions, or you can email me (I’m pretty easy to track down online) but I really don’t have anything to add.
Greg,
Whether you use the term or not does not invalidate its accuracy as a general description of a segment of society culture. It just shows a certain obtuseness on your part.
I reject Bergman’s description of how audiences should approach film. In no other art form would any serious person accept this. No one would take “putting aside will and intellect” seriously if it were novels, the visual arts, plays, poetry, music, etc. under discussion. But because now we talking about flickering images on a screen suddenly we’re supposed to put aside “will and intellect.” It’s absurd on its face.
In fact, I’d assert that your website, one that is full of people critiquing movies, music, books, comics, etc., that is, people using their intellect to examine the quality and messages in these mediums, is proof of that.
Just because Bergman said it doesn’t make it so.
How is refusing to release “Path to 9/11″ as a DVD, and kowtowing to political pressure (Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, Debbie Stabenow and Byron Dorgen signed a letter on behalf of ALL Democrats threatening ABC’s license to broadcast if the network allowed “this programming to proceed as planned.”), and forcing its creators to change the content in any way, shape or form analogous to Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11″ or even the controversy that erupted over CBS’s “The Reagans?” Last time I checked Moore’s “documentary” was readily available on DVD, and no one forced Moore to tone down his criticism of Bush or else the project would be shut down. Provide the documentation proving Republicans politicians threatened CBS’s license to broadcast.
The Reagans was “canceled?” That is only part of story. Here is CBS statement on the decision to move it from a free broadcast network to pay cable:
“CBS will not broadcast THE REAGANS on November 16 and 18. This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script.
“Although the mini-series features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience. Subsequent edits that we considered did not address those concerns.
“A free broadcast network, available to all over the public airwaves, has different standards than media the public must pay to view. We do, however, recognize and respect the filmmakers’ right to have their voice heard and their film seen. As such, we have reached an agreement to license the exhibition rights for the film to Showtime, a subscriber-based, pay-cable network. We believe this is a solution that benefits everyone involved.” Emphasis added.
Furthermore, no one at Viacom blocked The Reagans from DVD release. Not true with Disney/ABC. So anyone interested in a fictional film portraying Ronald Reagan as a bigoted, amiable dunce and suffering from Alzheimer’s disease while in White House, can get their fill of Mr. Streisand as America’s 40th President. It is readily available on DVD to anyone who might have missed its original airing.
Finally, as an Orthodox Christian, I’m very put off by your creating some kind of equivalence between Hollywood and Christ: “Hollywood. Jesus. Makes everyone unhappy.” That fact, that you assert that Christ “makes everyone unhappy” is rather odd theology, given the Christian emphasis on Joy. But I guess that’s what happens when one surrenders his will and intellect to the flickering images on the big screen inside the “church of the masses.”
Regarding what seems to be a large amount of allusion to a culture war of sorts:
If there is any chance of winning the “culture war” (if you subscribe to the belief that something like that even exists and is a matter of winning or losing) then it seems we are well on the road to losing simply by taking so much time to point out what the other group is trying to do to us rather than what we ourselves should be doing. To point fingers back and forth and say the Hollywood left is trying to influence the masses to do this or the Christian right is trying to influence the masses to do that simply enlarges the chasm that already exists between the two groups. No one is denying that there are differences in what people believe or how they see the world (as everyone sees the world differently), but I’m curious as to why we are so reactionary when it seems like someone is trying to influence us. Why not, instead (as Hollywoodjesus does) take one of the many cultural influences present in the world (film) and start a conversation on the positive side? Spirituality and Christianity are more present in the world than I believe we like to think sometimes. It seems as though Hollywoodjesus has actually achieved its purpose of creating conversation as evidenced by the above exchange. I believe the best chance we have of influencing the people around us and the world as a whole is not by pointing (saying you believe, you believe, you believe) but by talking, conversing, and discussing: the mutual exchange of ideas.
Where does the younger generation weigh in on this? Do young twenty-somethings at the outset of their careers in what could be in Hollywood or not seem more likely to create conversation rather than enhance what is already a sizeable rift? Or am I just wishful thinking…
Wow!! What a conversation! Well, I think all of you have some points that make sense. As a screenwriter, I understand the concept that films are ultimately made by “group think” mentality. And the quicker a screenwriter succumbs to that program, the quicker he or she get films made. Fundamentally, any script gets hammered and sawed by the producers, the directors, the studios, even the actors on the set. We even have a name for the process: monsterization. It’s when a script starts out one way and by the time it appears on the silver screen, it’s a “monster” version of the original – a 2-hour Frankenstein. I guess if you were going to try to put a label on any leftist conspiracy, that would be their meeting room.
But how does that really break down? I think we all agree that there are more liberal folks in Hollywood than conservatives, so does that indicate a conspiracy? I think Greg has it right – it’s probably just a group of like-minded people (liberals) talking about what they believe and sharing their worldviews. Does that LOOK like a conspiracy? Absolutely – especially when your children are watching their films and you’re concerned about what worldview is being socked away into their little brains. It seems we have two camps in Hollywood – one camp that is deliberately pushing an agenda (the Moore’s and Gore’s) and another camp that is simply sharing the way they view the world through art. Yes, there’s an agenda and no, there’s not.
And then there’s the third camp creeping in on the scene. If you want to talk about agendas, point the finger at Christians. More than any other group, the Christian filmmakers are working hard to get family-friendly stuff produced. I’m not complaining at all, because I’d like to see more of it myself. But there is no doubt whatsoever that Christians are trying to present either good morals or Jesus Christ in their films (and sometimes both). The agenda is clear. Out with the bad, in with the good. And they are scraping and leveraging to figure out how to get their films produced in Hollywood.
So when you’re assessing whether the culture is shaping movies or movies are shaping culture, the answer is yes. Both the left and the right are working hard to get their voices heard. And people who pay their $9 are listening and changing their minds about life because of what they hear and see on screen. This seems to be the nature of humanity – whether we are changed by words, books, radio or film. Film is just another venue for ideological exchange.
Lastly, I doubt Greg would ever imply that Jesus makes everyone unhappy. I think maybe he was trying to say that Hollywood’s liberals rub the Christians, and Jesus rubs the liberals, so everyone is unhappy with something. Sorry if I’m wrong on this one. That’s just the way it read to me.
Fun reading. Thanks guys!