We can kill off the debate before it starts if we ask how relevant Hollywood is, even for the movie industry itself, but let's try to see the general trends and stereotypes that are given and come out of Hollywood in relations to politics and ideals. Was it a surprise that both Sean Penn and Tim Robbins (best actor/supporting actor - Mystic River) won Oscars AND both have had active roles in the anit-war movement? I mean, I went out of my way to get to this movie and it was good, but not great. As far as the acting, well, nobody is saying that they were not good choices, but could have their moves outside the film cell helped the voters in selecting them? I'd say that in general, the "Academy" is political in nature. Who makes up this body? Isn't Hollywood Liberal? As far as the most political comments from the Oscars, we had: And while chatting with 13-year-old best actress nominee Keisha Castle-Hughes, he (Crystal) made a crack about his own first Oscar show 13 years ago -- and politics. "Things were different. Bush was president, the economy was tanking and we'd just finished a war in Iraq," he said There were a handful of jibes at President Bush and the war in Iraq, which some stars -- notably Penn and Robbins -- were outspoken in opposing. But it was Errol Morris, who won best documentary feature for "The Fog of War" -- about former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and lessons learned from the Vietnam War -- who took the most direct aim. After a jubilant opening -- "I'd like to thank the Academy -- for finally recognizing my films! I thought it would never happen!" said Morris, considered one of the masters of the documentary -- he turned to the subject of his film and the current political situation. "I fear we're going down a rabbit hole once again," he said. "And if people can stop and think and reflect on some of the ideas and issues in this movie, perhaps I've done some damn good here." Crystal, playing host to the Oscars for the eighth time, was in fine form. "I can't wait for his tax audit," he said after Morris' speech. http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/29/sprj.aa04.oscar.night/index.html
How relevant is Hollywood? Maybe as relevant as labor unions. Who knows. As to the politics of hollywood, it is left of the mainstream. Unfortunately for the mainstream. Hey, if they have Leni R. (Triumph of the Will) in one of the homages, does that kill the argument that there is a left wing bias? It looks like the academy was awarding alot of depressing stuff, like Monster and Mystic River. I think being depressing helps more than being right wing. Were Mel Gibsons and Moses' film careers ruined because of their politics? Of course not. Hollywood is probably more open minded than most fields. You think those guys who played Merry and Pippen would be allowed in a decent Fortune 500 boardroom? Hardly.
But then, wouldn't having a Republican former mayor as director of the movie hurt them in the same respect? I think you're reading something into a situation that's not there.
Re: Re: The Politics of Hollywood Agreed. Penn won the award because 1)he did a damn good job, and 2)he's way overdue for one. To even imply that he won it because of his political views is assanine, not to mention "liberal media" paranoia of the highest order.
Sean Penn is a political naif, as is Johnny Depp, but can anyone deny that both are incredible acting talents, who could play any part in any play or movie? Meanwhile, if you looked at the political map, Hollywood is not a part of the red color, or the blue color on the current rendition of the electorate. No the color of Hollywood is green. When Mel Gibson, he of the fundamentalist catholic schsimatics, looks for dough to do his next movie, I don't think he'll have to dip into his own bank account.
Re: Re: The Politics of Hollywood A republican in California is different outside the state. Clint Eastwood has been in the game too long to be held up by such positions. I think you are focusing on the acting, while agreed, that was good and worthy of such an award. I don't even know what other actors were up for those awards, so I couldn't really compare them to their peers. I went out of my way to say that these are good actors, that is not the point. Could their politics have put them over the top? There have been "sentimental" winners in the past and who could deny that people with similar political sentiments from looking to their own? I'd guess
Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Hollywood Perhaps, but considering Elia Kazan was honored, I don't think those awards are the exclusive millieu of flag burning leftists. Hollywood does have a liberal slant, but artists historically have tended to be liberal, with notable exceptions. Similarly, I'm sure Hollywood still has plenty of its Cecil B. DeMille types, even if the majority are card carrying members of the ACLU.
This is very true. I would point out, however, that the true color of the Republican party is green as well, though. Thus I'd say "Hollywood" leans right (if Hollywood=the studios and financiers), while the artists clearly lean left. After all, if Hollywood was so left leaning, would this year have been the first ever Best Director nom for an American woman? Has a black director ever been nominated? (I remember Spike Lee getting snubbed early in his career, though he may have been for Malcolm X?). Then look at the content/themes of the films: glorification of wealth and consumer soceity, with product placement becoming standard. And for every radical Hollywood film, there are dozens of right wing schlock-fests like Arnold, Seagall, or Rambo movies. Entire genres are indeed conservative by nature: action, horror, war, most romantic comedies, mysteries/thrillers, fantasy/sci-fi, and most slapstick comedies. Drama probably tends to be a bit left leaning, and dark-comedies/satires. Thats about it though.
How can any genre be conservative "by nature"?? Although the few actors who are conservative tend to be action stars (Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger--who is conservative only by Hollywood standards--, Charlton Heston, Jean-Claude Van Damme), this doesn't make action movies conservative by nature. "Enemy of the State" or "The Last Samurai", anyone? Of the genres you listed, war movies are the only ones that frequently have any sort of political message at all, and these are just as likely to be left-leaning (Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Three Kings) as right-leaning (most WW2 movies) as apolitical (Black Hawk Down, Pearl Harbor). The rest very rarely have any political message at all, unless I missed the deep-seated, thoughtful rightist social commentary in "Dumb and Dumber" and "Freddy vs. Jason". Fact is you can make a movie of any genre with a right-wing message or a left-wing message, and most movies don't have any political message at all. How do you figure that "Arnold, Seagall (sic), and Rambo movies" are "right-wing schlock-fests"?? I actually watched part of "First Blood" tonight and thought that it conveyed a leftist message if anything (psycho military baby killer comes back home and wastes an entire town), altho the sequels do swing a little to the right (but it is clearly done for entertainment rather than political purposes).
Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Hollywood If you don't even know what other actors were up for the awards, how is the political question even remotely valid? To answer your question, Sean Penn was up against Michael Moore, Ralph Nader and Pol Pot.
Re: Re: Re: The Politics of Hollywood I'd guess you'd be wrong. Sean Penn is one of the finest actors of his generation, and Mystic River was one of the finest movies of the year. Just give some credit where credit is due, eh??
I don't agree with Penn's political views, but I think he is not one of those leftist actors who don't know what they are talking about and are just puppets manipulated by ideologues. It seems to me that he is serious and thoughtful about his views. And while I thought his reference to WMD's was out of place, at least it was presented as a joke, so it really did not bother me in the way that Michael Moorer's act did last year. And well... we haven't found them, so what can I say? Besides, I respect Penn as an excellent actor and I think his performance deserved the award, even though I didn't particularly like 'Mystic River'. As far as that guy who spoke about the rabbit whole, I have no idea who he is or his background, but he cannot be taken seriously. I guess since his movie was about Vietnam, he was entitled to make a comparison to whatever he thinks we are doing now in the rabbit hole. But I still think the comparison is ridiculous. How can anybody seriously even consider his comparison? The total amount of Americans who died in Iraq since the war started until now would have been considered a relatively good day at the height of the Vietnam War. And as far as I know, Ho Chi Min was never captured. Yet since last November we captured Saddam and the monthly number of US soldier deaths has declined by 75 percent. But, hey, don't get me started on this topic. We were talking about politics at the Oscars, right?
Since you don't know who he is or anything about his background, how do you know he can't be taken seriously?
What? A black former heavyweight boxer won an academy award? Damn. That's stupendicular, as Don King would say.
He did probably the greatest documentary ever done, The Thin Blue Line, as well as a few others. Dude, try not to sound like a dolt.
I'm sure many people might be open to "consider" his comparison. But I think the filmmaker is probably more interested in getting people to pay $10 to walk into the theater to watch his movie - instead of whether they exit thinking about today's rabbit hole. It almost makes me want to see the movie to tell if he's a crackpot or has a point. In that sense, his speech was good in that it might inspire people to see the movie. No rush though - I'll probably save $6 and wait for the video...
Hehe. My bad. I hope Mr. Moorer doesn't feel inclined to kick my ass for confusing him with the likes of Michael Moore.
If you take my comments in context you will understand that I mean that, in my opinion, it is his comparison (between Vietnam and whatever present he was alluding to, presumably Iraq), that cannot be taken seriously. I am not commenting on the overall seriousness of the person. The point I made about not knowing who he is is meant to underline the fact that I am only judging what he said and nothing else about the man. (As opposed to Sean Penn, whom I was discussing based on what I know about him and his career.) And BTW, (Mr. Oman), since when is admiting that we don't know some obscure filmmaker grounds for calling somebody a dolt? That kind of talk only debases the discussion. But I think Poopypants is right. We would not be talking about this guy, regardless of how worthy his film really is, if he hadn't made those remarks about the rabbit hole. I hope he enjoys his tax audit.
Yes, Hollywood leans very liberal. But they definitely don't want to appear liberal, any more than they want to appear gay or Jewish, which of course they mostly are. If Hollywood execs actually made movies which reflected their values, every film would be about prissy queers having catfights over who gets the big corner office and whether you can expense the ski boots you bought for Sundance.
Oh, and if one good thing comes out of this conversation, it should be that you all learn who Errol Morris is. He's far from being "some obscure filmmaker." He was a lock to win the award as much as Hitchcock would have been had he been nominated in the Best Director category. He is one of the all-time greats in his field. Whether he were a Larouche Democrat or Karl Rove's love slave and he still would have won.
That's not what you said. And even if you had, I wouldn't agree with you. Could've fooled me. That's a fairly limited knowledge base. Do does dismissing somebody you're unfamiliar with as obscure because you don't agree with him.
I wish I had let this thread die, but here is a bump! I am so glad this thread died a fast and furious death, especially thanks to all the thoughtful responses like this one. I guess it doesn't matter what garbage comes out of Hollywood because it is more a symbol rather than a center of (popular) culture as it once was. Be that as it may, the movie industry, especially in Hollywood, faces some of the same issues most corporations/industry in the US faces. Ever hear of unions? Ever hear of people losing jobs to other countries? Ever hear of a Hollywood blacklist? To boot, how many times do I have to say that I went out of my way to see Mystic River and that I thought both actors were good in their roles? It is a valid question, as these two guys were active against the war and we know that outside influences exist, yes, especially in Hollywood. Do you think the Academy is above trying to send Bush a message? You don't think these two were finally awarded for their years of work and possibly for their anti-war efforts? Sean Penn is probably the best actor of this generation. He is way better than that Ed Norton guy, who gets all the good press for his craft. But, even if Clint Eastwood says that he would hire Sean anytime, Sean doesn't have box office success. Could it be due to his politics? I mean, why not touch the topic race if we want to see the politics of Hollywood. It took them a long time to award the black folk, no? In fact, I thought that many blacks were passed over many times before they won, for roles not as good as the ones they did when they were passed over. After Hallie Berry got her award, just about half Hollywood was patting themselves on the back for that one! It was so obvious that they awarded her for their reasons. Oh, but that must mean that I didn't think she was worthy of the award? Yea, go ahead, spin it and say that I am against her winning. She was great in Monster's Ball, but the way "Hollywood" seemed to say, look, we finally did it, we gave one to a dark person, aren't we great? They should have been saying, Yea, this young lady finally earned her award. She did it. Isn't she great? There have been artificial barriers to the Oscar and politics (of Hollywood and the Academy) have been the reason for either getting one or getting the snub. I mean, don't at least some of you remember that old barrier of not awarding a best actress to a lady who actually had a nude scene in her movie? Tim and Sean? Anti-war? Oscar winners? Coincidence? I just hope the US movie industry not only tries to make some quality stuff, but looks to solve some of their problems. Using a captive audience to send a message is rather lame, but the real news from this award show was that nothing really happened. No lesbian kisses, no flashes of flesh and it wasn't all that political as we have seen in the past.