In another email earlier today, I learned that Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry (which, rather amusingly, is directed by George Butler, who also directed the Arnold Schwarzenegger biopic Pumping Iron) will be released on October 1. By my count, that makes three separate movies this campaign season that are either pro-Kerry or anti-Bush:
– Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry
Plus two more that, while not specifically anti-Bush, are certainly unsympathetic to the conservative cause:
– Outfoxed
Have liberals have finally figured out an effective way to fight back against talk radio?
Because, as you well know, a Hollywood sympathetic to all things Democratic is a new development. The stupid is out in force today, and it is only 10 am and I already want a stiff Laphroiag.
I am sure you have heard of most of these films, but Control Room is a rather disturbing film. It is nothing morethan a sympathetic portrayal of Al Jazeera, which, I guess, we all thought was missing from the presidential debate.
shark
You’re not even counting “mainstream” hollywood crap like “The Day After Tomorrow” or “The Manchurian Candidate”, not to mention all the anti-Bush crap on TV (lamest one: on ER, parents decide not to name a baby George because of our President. I stopped watching ER after that)
elgato
I commend you on your choice of whiskey. Islay’s are my favorite of the Scotch whiskies.
JKC
Not sure I get what you’re outraged about, John. I read Drum’s post: all it said was that liberals may be able to use documentaries to further their cause the way the conservatives have used talk radio to further theirs. What’s the big deal?
HH
There is also thie John Sayles “fictional” film out in a month or two with Chris Cooper as a Bush look- and sound-alike, an unabashed hit piece on Bush.
Now that George Butler is in good with the Dems, don’t you think it’s time for, say, Al Franken and company to stop claiming that Arnold said he was a fan of Hitler, as Butler himself was the guy who exposed that ABC was distorting that quote?
HH
The stupidity is in how Drum understates it and plays dumb about the Hollywood left hate agenda which has been around for decades… it’s not just docs like I said. There are at least three “fictional” films which are attacks on Bush (though Manchurian Candidate’s coincidental resemblances to Hillary and Kerry might backfire).
Also Team America attacks the left and right equally supposedly.
More – http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Politics/liberal_movies_040617.html
Ivor the Engine Driver
I keep forgetting, is this blog a parody of Republican thought patterns? Or is it serious? Hard to tell sometimes.
JKC
“The Hollywood Left Hate Agenda?”
Please… give me a break. How about “the conservative radio hate agenda”? One makes about as much sense as the other.
You guys tend to crow about “free market forces” being responsible for the success of conservative talk radio. (“It wouldn’t succeed if people weren’t listening!”) Stop whining when those same market forces work for movies whose politics you don’t like.
Dean
JKC:
That argument would work better if either:
–there were non-Hollywood movies out there, to provide a competition; or
–Hollywood operated by market forces.
Rush has gone up against Air America. G. Gordon Liddy has done battle with Jim Hightower. The results are pretty obvious.
But the Left’s movies rarely do well. (F9-11 is an interesting example: As a “documentary,” it grosses quite well, but as a Hollywood film, it would be in the bottom quintile.) But that hardly makes a difference, it seems.
And meanwhile, Hollywood ignores the appeal of something like “The Passion,” which, by *whatever* Hollywood standards, did blockbuster business.
jeff
Nobody’s whining, JKC. Mr. Cole doesn’t need me to speak for him, but i think his point was that Hollywood pushing a far left agenda is a significantly older concept than talk-radio.
Further, it’s also indicitative (this is me talking now, i’m not trying to speak for John) of how nitwits like Drum are constantly on that “oh goody, Dems are fighting back because we’ve been so darn nice for so darn long”, which is complete bunk, as Dems have always known how to take off the gloves and play dirty.
bg
“If there were non-Hollywood movies out there, to provide a competition…”
“And meanwhile, Hollywood ignores the appeal of something like “The Passion,” which, by *whatever* Hollywood standards, did blockbuster business.”
Don’t “these” two statements, kind of, you “know,” conflict with each other?
Dean
bg:
“The Passion” was a one-off movie, paid for pretty much entirely out of the pocket of Mel Gibson. How many movies are likely to get made this way?
“The Passion,” in fact, makes the point that Hollywood is not operating by free-market principles (at least, not entirely).
In the main, non-Hollywood makes very few movies (indies, “The Passion”). In even fewer cases are they sufficiently backed to get them into wide release w/o having to resort to Hollywood and the studio system. (What, BESIDES “The Passion” hasn’t had to go through the system? Even F9-11 relied on Miramax, iirc, to get wide distro.)
Thus, there is more of a cartel at work, one might argue, in the case of Hollywood (especially over the DISTRIBUTION of films, more than the making of films).
That being said, I agree w/ Jeff. I’m hardly whining about Hollywood (I think they’re pretty irrelevant in the main to how decisions are made in this country), and certainly not arguing for some “equal time” argument in movie-making.
bg
Yeah, but your point kind of ignores the whole indie-film movement in the 90s (whatever you think of them now, it wasn’t always that way). It also excludes foreign films.
Slartibartfast
I wonder, is Ivor a parody of silly, overgeneralizing Leftish thought, or is he serious? Hard to tell sometimes.
Dean
bg:
JKC’s second argument is that Hollywood is the free market at work, and that those who are complaining are exercising a double-standard.
My point is simply to note that Hollywood is *not* a free market, but, really, more of a cartel, and that his argument is therefore inapposite.
Whether there are foreign films out there, and whether there are indie films, makes little difference if they are still depending on Hollywood for distribution and access to theaters.
bg
Your point was that Hollywood doesn’t have competition, which I don’t think is true. Hollywood’s competition might be marginal, but it’s there.
I like that you bring up Miramax distributing F-9/11. Once upon a time, Miramax was just a little indie studio (not that it matters).
The Monk
The Monk finds this funny: The Manchurian Candidate is supposed to be a sly comment on the mind control Bush is using against the American public, but the Candidate himself is a war hero and Senator and his momma is Hillary Clinton on steroids.
Dean
bg:
Glad to hear you think so. In which case, Middle East oil dependency isn’t really much of an issue, either, since there are non-OPEC (never mind non-Middle East) oil producers. Indeed, the non-ME oil producers are far *less* marginal than the non-Hollywood films.
bg
I think there’s a substantial difference between movies and oil, but you are correct in the trite academic sense of being correct.
RW
You get credit for that score, Dean.
Justin Ogren
Fahrenheit 9/11 did something unlike any film of it’s kind, it did something major for the film industry, it really put documentaries in the eyes of more Americans than there ever have been…. the propaganda talk…. calling it propaganda is spread by propoganda itself, haha and what trying to relate it to German propoganda…..geesh what a low blow from what I’ve heard from people, that’s just off the scale, and far from it.
Justin Ogren
lamest one: on ER, parents decide not to name a baby George because of our President. I stopped watching ER after that
Hey shark I think what E.R. was getting at, was the way American families name their children on popularity, and that was based on popularity. What was the name changed to anyways?
Dean
Justin:
If that was the case, then ER should have used the data developed by the US Census Bureau’s accounting. Believe it or not, I believe they actually DO measure name popularity from census to census.
And, iirc, the most precipitous drop in name popularity?
Hillary.
bg
I’m not surprised Hillary isn’t popular, what with half the country loathing HRC. Tsk tsk Hillary-haters.
HH
Of course the idea that the market “works” for these left hate movies is dubious to say the least. Manchurian Candidate was a bust vs. The Village. The Contender years ago has been totally forgotten. It takes the full-on media push to get lefties (and almost solely lefties as actual facts, not Moore spin shows) to a Michael Moore flick.
gop in az
a stiff laphroiag? what are you, some sort of elitist with your imported whiskey? show some patriotism and buy american.
Chris Arndt
Moore’s movies are not documentaries. All documentaries have their own biases so whether or not there is one present is altogeter irrelevent to the issue. But a documentary must have a greater element of truth than Moore’s conspiracy failings.
Justin Ogren
You don’t use real data in a case like that, it’s a fictionous talk between characters, there are going to be untrue discrepincies and there wasn’t even a reason to in the first place. Parents changed the name of their baby in thought that their baby’s name would reflect George Bush, which is pretty ridiculous to change a name based on that, but I mean it was a little scene from the whole show which probably had a bigger reflection and idea although I didn’t see the episode myself because I’m not a huge fan of E.R. But when I do see it, each show usually tackles an idea and uses drama to capture it, I mean it’s not like you put all real to life facts in any any of all drama unless they are obsessive fact freaks who use that to tell drama. E.R. uses characters of reality in which to tell the story of the episode, so you have to show ignorance every once in awhile, as well as other characteristics and traits of a human being.
Harry in Atlanta
Mel Gibson’s “Passion” is in no way evidence of balance in mainstream filmmaking. John’s point is about left-wing political films being made by Hollywood. Where are the politics in the “Passion” other than the politics two millenia ago surrounding the crucifixtion of Christ? Producers in Hollywood didn’t turn down financing “The Passion” because of Gibson’s conservative leanings, they turned it down because either they disliked the film pro-Christian content or they believed it would not make money.
I don’t see a problem with Hollywood producing such films a ‘F9/11’ because as big a douchebag as Mike Moore is he is out front about what his message will be. And more power to him in getting needy frustrated liberals to fork over their hard-earned money to have him reinforce their own unshakable beliefs, even if it is sophistry and lies. Besides it must make them feel good to be told that they’re right, right? And undoubtedly they are willing to pay to be told that their paranoia is justified, so more power to Mike in providing a nesscessary and soothing pyscho-therapy to confused liberals and making a some serious jack while doing it.
OTOH I would like for Hollywood to be as up front as Moore is and not their political messages within so-called entertainment. When I go to the movies I want to be entertained not lectured or propagandized without foreknowledge so I can decide how to spend my hard-earned money, because lying, even by omission, to get me to pay to watch or listen to leftwing pablum deguised as entertainment is cheesey and dishonest.
Looking at the rich liberals in Hollywood it is easy to see that they really like money; why else would they move much of their movie and tv production to Canada to avoid labor unions and their fees. Now that’s a serious load of liberal hypocrisy if I have ever seen it, and believe me I’ve seen it.