comment #1

craptastic says ...

How about writing an article about how the Arclight is run by Scientology, Nikki Finke! Don't fear the story!

comment #2

Way Down East says ...

If this town went Socialist, you'd also see vastly improved motion pictures. Finke overstates things, but barely. Hollywood is dead 6 months of the year thanks to ridiculously long vacations. This makes any projects requiring more than a two sentence logline a nightmare to set up.

comment #3

Nicol D says ...

Problem is they think that they are socialist and make films that reflect that ideological worldview.

Leads to a situation where no one wins and people get tired of the whining.

comment #4

Anonymous says ...

Frankly, I'm tired of your whining.

comment #5

NYCBusybody says ...

If this country ever does go socialist, I want Jeffrey's job. Watching DVDs is work? Sign me up, comrade!

comment #6

oddDuck says ...

Nicol D is just a pot stirrer. And yeah, I'd love to watch DVD's for $$ too, but highly doubt this website is making Jeffrey Wells a billionaire -- I'm sure if he wanted to, he could redirect his energies in a much more lucrative, soul-sucking direction.

comment #7

NYCBusybody says ...

Not a billionaire, but he's still making money doing what he loves to do. That wouldn't happen in a truly socialist society. He'd have to farm pigs, most likely. Running a magazine in a "socialist" manner is fine and dandy, but actually enforcing that on society at large would make reviewing DVDs for a living impossible.

comment #8

Nicol D says ...

No, I am not a 'pot stirrer'.

I just give you my opinions and they happen to be different than what most people in the film industry are used to hearing.

Do you think this site would be more or less interesting if everyone on it just had the same, homogeneous opinion?

Many differing people love and have studied film and are in the film industry.

Does no one else see the irony of the 'capitalists' in the film industry who are populated by largely white executives and artists in main power player roles telling everyone else in the country how 'unenlightened' they are?

comment #9

oddDuck says ...

I'm sorry Nicol, I actually didn't mean it in a negative way (well maybe a little), but come on, your posts evince, at least partially, an intent to provocate. I've got no problems with your contratianism, and it's not place to tell you where to post, but ya gotta realize you're gonna bump elbows here with your less-than-diplomatic tone. Again, I don't mind it, and most of the time it helps keep a thread lively (or at least alive). Anyway, rant over.

comment #10

NYCBusybody says ...

Don't listen to the likes of oddDuck, nicol. He's the type who is threatened by anyone who dares have an opinion that is outside his limited and narrow worldview.

comment #11

nobdy says ...

ehh.. isn't that just the typical workplace situation?

i.e. office space?

comment #12

oddDuck says ...

Excuse my misspelling of "contrarianism", which when spelled correctly, still may not be an actual word.

comment #13

NYCBusybody says ...

My post came after oddDuck's polite and well-worded apology and explanation.

Now it is I who am the total asshole.

Maybe I have a future as a Hollywood exec!

comment #14

Dave Poland's Gut says ...

Isn't Hollywood already socialist?

The only capitalist principles they embrace are when it involves themselves.

comment #15

craptastic says ...

Hollywood + Scientology = Alien Invasion. Beware the skies!

comment #16

Steve C. says ...

"people get tired of the whining."

Like the standard conservative canard about how studio's put their "ideological worldview" into almost every film they produce?

Grow up, the idea that someone might say one thing yet do another is as valid and ubiquitous in the film business as in your life. Please tell me where the socialist worldview is in films like TITANIC, THE MATRIX, SPIDER-MAN, FINDING NEMO, THE INCREDIBLES, LORD OF THE RINGS, etc (and try to keep aspects that are democratic seperate from those that are solely socialist).

It's the box office, stupid - uber alles. Also, try to be perceptive enough to separate the true believers in progressive or even socialist views from those that pay lip service to them simply because so many of the creative people they have to deal with have those views.

comment #17

NYCBusybody says ...

Lord of the Rings and The Incredibles were actually championed by many thoughtful conservatives (as opposed to ridiculous, extreme ones).

But "paying lip service" to something as extreme as socialism is as morally repugnant as actually believing in it.

comment #18

Larry says ...

Okay, let's look at the ideology of the films listed above.

TITANIC is very class conscious. The arrogant rich fools who run everything cause the problem. The girl does the right thing by going for the virtuous poor guy in steerage and avoiding the evil rich man who wants to marry her.

THE MATRIX is a comment on our world today--how we live in this mindless capitalist world, fooling ourselves about the real essence of life. Also how we as a species are vermin because of our mindless consumerism preventing us from even being able to live in a computer-generated utopia.

SPIDER-MAN is about a poor kid who can't win the girl because he doesn't have the dough. When he tries to actually earn money using his talents, he ends up doing evil, so he dedicates himself to fighting for the good--which means fighting against a villain who's a rich industrialist. Meanwhile, he's not appreciated by his rich boss, who treat him like crap and shamelessly exploits the wonderful work he's doing.

FINDING NEMO is about a world where there's no money and everyone cooperates to solve problems. The danger comes from the one who has a job, the dentist.

THE INCREDIBLES is about not holding back your talent, no matter what society says. It's closer to supporting the right (for some reason the left now opposes individualism) than almost any other film of the past few years, which makes it special.

LORD OF THE RINGS mixes a lot of fantasy aspects, being based on an old book that itself mixed a lot of fantasy aspects. The essence of the whole quest is getting rid of your greatest wealth or it will destroy you.

Actually, I don't believe Hollywood is too ideological. But when it tries to be, it's generally on the left.

comment #19

Steve C says ...

As to the original point of this thread, I think it's alot more sour grapes than a real knowledge of the time execs (especially higher echelon ones) spend doing their jobs. I am surprised that apparently Jeff has gotten to know so few studio heads or their lieutenants to think that these extended vacations are long periods of play or relaxing.

Usually, they are simply work in a different setting. Yes, it's nice to have a great view while you have to deal with some issue or stress 3,000 miles away, but it's still work while everyone else is off horseback riding or boogie boarding.

But even if it was mostly free and clear of all of these things, do you have any idea just how many of those 12 hour days took place on weekends? Even the things we might consider perks become a pain in the ass to them. I know the head of a studio and he absolutely hates all the awards, banquets, charity events and parties that must be attended because of a star or corporate obligation. He went to Cannes, but spent most of the time on the plane there and back.

I might think that most of them have no real love of cinema, that they produce mostly crap because they lack the gut instincts & feel for the zeitgiest that earlier heads possessed and if we wanted to improve things we should follow Shakespeare's admontion to "kill all the lawyers" (and MBA's) in the industry - YET I will acknowledge that are not churning out this torrent of mediocrity with a minimum of effort.

In otherwords, it takes a lot of work to even make the unexceptional happen.

comment #20

travis b. says ...

hollywood tends to be reactionary to the political climate, which in turn leads to reaction from whoever is in power of that climate. It's just that the two have the loudest bullhorns which tend to skew the viewpoints of the average person. but i would rather hollywood be reactionary and make movies that promote some sort of debate rather than turn out constant dribble that does nothing to promote any kind of discussion.

comment #21

Steve C says ...

Larry - he did not say simply left or progressive, he said "socialist."

Since it is a standard conservative bullshit tactic to try to lump socialists and anyone on the left in together, I was curious what STRICTLY socialist ideas were championed in these films.

comment #22

NYCBusybody says ...

Steve C, does the C stand for Commie?

Just kidding. And you're right. The only STRICTLY socialist movies I can think of are really Warren Beatty-associated, like Bulworth and Reds.

comment #23

NYCBusybody says ...

And Robin Hood! That wily little fox was a socialist asshole. Long live Prince John!

comment #24

Nicol D says ...

Odduck,

There is no apology necessary. If I came off less than diplomatic then I apologize.

To the others,

This is a very long discussion that we could have for a while, but what I would say is that what makes Hollywood ideologically motivated isn't necessarily the stories that they do tell...it's the stories that they do not.

If we have to watch more odes to Che, why not a film on the horrors of Stalinist Russia?

If we have to see a film like The Da Vinci Code...how about a film about a priest whose a missionary and does good in the world?

Can we have the depiction of a politician on film who is a Republican and not a one dimensional snidely whiplash?

For every 5 films about McCarthy, how about a story of censorship on a university campus that goes in depth to the problems there?

How about an adaptation of State of Fear or My Name is Charlotte Simmons?

Again, the notion that somehow Hollywood is 'only about the money' does not really fly. If that were true we would have seen a flurry of Passion imitators last year. We did not...but another Che film is on the way and Brad Pitt is looking for a film where he can be gay...(not that there's anything wrong with that;).

I love film more than anything in the world. I see them all. That's why I critique them. I just want to see more stories form different types of world views.

And the notion that Hollywood is just reactionary depending on the administration is also incorrect. It's not like during the 90's there was a spate of conservative or Christian films.

It is more cultural; the values of the 'boomer 60's generation' coming into play now that they own the power structures of society.

It is a natural course...but one that many are tired of. It makes stories predictable and boring.

But things do change. Television is already adapting (24, Everwood) and I suspect in another decade or so, we will see that change reflected on the big screen as well.

comment #25

travis b. says ...

nicol..

good stuff. we may not agree on a lot of things, but you've brought some good arguments to the table here.

when i mentioned hollywood being reactionary, i said it reacted to the political climate, not the particular administration. in the 90's there were several films criticizing Clinton outright, such as Primary Colors. Wag the Dog is another example, even though Clinton made it more prophetic than anything.

What I mean is it reacts more to the times and the political currents of those. Look at the films of the late 60's and early 70's compared to what was going on then. Or even the 80s to their respective time (and when i say that, i mean how shallow and vapid a lot of the mainstream films were).

I'm going to spare everyone from going through a point by point rebuttal to your comments, but there's a couple of things i want to throw out there. There's really only been one or two McCarthyesque films out there in the past few years (I can only think of Good Night and Good Luck and to some extent The Majestic), but I think it's a good response to the dangers of a government having too much power as opposed to a direct condemnation of the Republicans. While one can argue that it has correlations to the current administration, it serves as more of a warning of a government gone too far. I know it's fashionable nowadays to rip the republicans and the right, but the democrats haven't exactly been impeding their progress. Thus, it's more of a universal condemnation.

Also, what movie shows the Republicans as one dimensional snidely whiplashes? didn't 24 do just that?

And when you say it's not about money, then how does one explain "the Da Vinci Code" being made into a movie. The book was horrid and the movie was even worse. There's only one reason why it was made. And that's also why you probably will never see a major motion picture studio making a film about a missionary travelling the world. As much money as the Passion of the Christ made, a lot of it was due to the subject matter and the controversy surrounding it.

Finally, I have never seen a university professor ever censor anyone. Most encourage open debate and while they may not agree, as long as the position is brought to the table in a reasonable way and not in an angry tone, it's welcomed. Maybe we had different experiences at our respective universities.

alright, so what was the original article about?

comment #26

Daniel Zelter says ...

Nicol: "Does no one else see the irony of the 'capitalists' in the film industry who are populated by largely white executives and artists in main power player roles telling everyone else in the country how 'unenlightened' they are?"

Well let's be honest. They're as much a part of the status quo as the Republicans who just denied the public a minimum wage increase. In fact, I remember a guy reviewing the V for Vendetta movie saying how absurd it is for a major movie studio to be talking about revolution, when they slap it on clothing and action figures. Still, if it's a choice of siding with one money-grubbing egotistical personality over another, I'll take the one who's not a war-mongering religious fanatic.

"If we have to watch more odes to Che, why not a film on the horrors of Stalinist Russia?"

I'm guessing because Russia has just had horrible authoritarian rulers since the Mongols, and that Stalin's just a new face on an old problem.

"If we have to see a film like The Da Vinci Code...how about a film about a priest whose a missionary and does good in the world?"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098219/

"Can we have the depiction of a politician on film who is a Republican and not a one dimensional snidely whiplash?"

Ask Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

"For every 5 films about McCarthy, how about a story of censorship on a university campus that goes in depth to the problems there?"

Whatever that means...

comment #27

Larry says ...

Clinton was criticized in PRIMARY COLORS? That film kissed his behind. Sure, the protagonist fooled around, but he was smart and bighearted and deeply committed to helping regular folks. It was simply assumed that Republicans were evil scumbags who didn't give a damn about anything except lining the pockets of their rich cronies.

Not only have I seen university professors censor things, that's practically the norm these days. I could name particular ones who have made careers out of favoring censorship (e.g., Richard Delgado, Mari J. Matsuda, Catherine MacKinnon), but I'm talking more about the tens of thousands who vote for campus speech codes, support overly broad "hostile environment" rules, and campaign for public laws against hate speech--i.e., politically unpopular speech (to them), such as saying "homosexual acts creep me out" or "Palestinians support ruthless killers" or "perhaps women and men have different capacities when it comes to math."

Che, by the way, was a pretty nasty character. Make films about this murderer if you like, but it's pretty sickening to see him lionized.

comment #28

Daniel Zelter says ...

Larry: " It was simply assumed that Republicans were evil scumbags who didn't give a damn about anything except lining the pockets of their rich cronies."

So Mike Brown is just an anomaly?

"i.e., politically unpopular speech (to them)... "perhaps women and men have different capacities when it comes to math.""

So it's popular for non-university people to say women are stupid at math?

"Che, by the way, was a pretty nasty character."

So was Pinochet, but I don't see us closing down the School of the Americas.

comment #29

Larry says ...

Daniel:

I don't mean to argue over every small point, but...

The point regarding men and women and math is that you're not even allowed to say such things under certain campus speech codes. These codes are generally unconstitutional, but that doesn't stop the profs from supporting them, which was the original point. (Incidentally, there is some biological evidence that men and women's brains are different, or am I not even allowed to suggest that?)

And when they start making films about what a great guy Pinochet was, then we can talk.

comment #30

Daniel Zelter says ...

Larry:

"The point regarding men and women and math is that you're not even allowed to say such things under certain campus speech codes."

I'm assuming if it's considered harassment or it disrupts the classroom setting. But I'm not sure about specifics, so...