comment #1

guy steele says ...

I can understand why you would pick this poster as your fave for the year so far... I have just looked at all the posters released so far and this is one of only a handful that is artistic. I think it is safe to say that at least 95% of the posters are photographic. A few of the art ones are nice but have been done before.

Nowe as for nice photo posters I recommend the first poster for Hard Candy. It's an original concept that sells the title.

And my fave photo poster so far is the teaser for Casino Royale. It's a great image to introduce us to the new Bond. They could have gone the route of Bond holding his gun up with both hands but they have done that and it's expected. Instead mood lighting, cards, chips and bond looking downcast and dangerous is reaching for his gun on the table. It's a perfect beginning and after the the trailer I now have high hopes. I liked Goldeneye and Living Daylights otherwise give me the Bond of the 60's.

I know I got off of point here.

Let me mention though that one of the very few art posters I think is the worse: The Oh in Ohio! YUCKY artwork.

comment #2

Matt says ...

I was very disappointed to look at your Oscar lists at the bottom of this page and not see Half-Nelson listed for Actor, Supporting Actress, Screenplay, Director and maybe even Picture. It's certainly the best film I've seen this year. A beautifully made, incredibly moving film.

comment #3

Rich S. says ...

Great poster. Terrible title. I double checked IMDB and, sure enough, it was the title of a short-lived cop show starring Joe Pesci. "Half" Nelson, get it? Pesci's short! Hysterical.

Kidding aside, the early buzz on this film is great so here's hoping.

comment #4

Nicol D says ...

Great Poster?

Hmmm...

I think it is a poster that says 'indie', 'lowbudget', 'trying to be irreverant and cool but most likely will be very PC in that indie, lowbudget kind of way'.

I find the look on his face quite annonying.

But then again my definition of a beautiful poster is Superman Returns or Lady in the Water...

comment #5

travis b. says ...

do you even like movies?

comment #6

oddDuck says ...

Nicol D, I think it's you preconceived notions of hollywood indie films that make you think this movie will be "PC". Honestly, can you point to a single elemnt in this poster that points supports your opinion?

comment #7

Colin says ...

Well, the movie is based on a short named "Gowanus, Brooklyn." I'm not sure which title I dislike more. Having lived in Brooklyn, I know about Gowanus, but I'm not sure how much information that title would give to most people about where the film takes place. And it says nothing about the addicted teacher plot.

I don't get the title "Half Nelson." If I just heard it, I would think it was a doc about wrestling. I thought for a second that Gosling's character might be named Nelson, but he's named Dan. I'm not sure what to make of it.

That said, the poster looks cool, and the movie has gotten good buzz, so I'll probably check it out.

comment #8

jesse says ...

Nicol, when does the the "anti-PC" patrolling become as repetitive and reductive as the supposed PC police that roam through Hollywood?

I understand the idea that some indie movies are sort of faux-offensive or faux-gritty when really they just affirm the beliefs of their target audience. I get that idea, I do. There is even some truth to it. But hammer it home too much and you just sound like you're dismissing everything as posturing.

I've heard a lot about recent movies you didn't like, for a variety of idiosyncratic and sometimes obsessive reasons (Leo DiCaprio is baby-faced and therefore cannot play anyone over 17; Kevin Smith's Catholicism is both not as irreverent as he thinks it is and far too irreverent; Superman Returns differs drastically from your universally held interpretation of the Superman character). Care to share any that you do? Besides the work of the esteemed and persecuted Mel Gibson, of course.

comment #9

guy steele says ...

Hey HE bloggers... I think this talkback is getting off subject. It's about the poster art not title or anything else. My comments above were about poster art yet most of the above comments are about the movie or title.

comment #10

Nicol D says ...

Oddduck,

I never said the film 'would' be PC, just that the poster reaks of the PC indie vibe.

Does that have to do with pre-conceived notions of indie films? Of course. Very few indie films (Sundance type) are not PC...and this poster has a very "alt-Sundance vibe".

But that is the job of a poster...to sell an idea and tone to a demographic.

Understand I am not saying I am right...but given that the film deals with an urban school setting...I'm betting I will be.

Just as you saw the poster and with your pre-conceived notions of 'good' saw a poster for a film you would want to see. I used my pre-conceived notions of indie-PC and went 'blech'.

Do not think that only negative interpretations come with pre-conceived notions.

comment #11

oddDuck says ...

Actually, Nicol, I never said I want to see the movie. I never heard of it before today and know almost nothing about it still. Until I actually read some reviews or see the trailer to get a sense of what the movie's about, I won't know what to think about the movie.

comment #12

Nicol D says ...

Jesse,

You're on a fine line when you try to quote me and do it incorrectly.

See I actually liked Superman Returns and defended it more than most.

If the best you can do to take a shot at me is misquote my views and take a cheapy crack at Mel Gibson (is he on these boards?)then I do not feel like I need to justify my views to you.

See unlike most fans I do not feel the need to say I love everything I am supposed to. I am comfortable enough in my film opinions to say that.

True film fans should lament how uptight PC Hollywood has become. It makes stories poor and repetitious.

A film I saw recently and loved? French Connection II.

Next!

comment #13

Colin says ...

Here's an interesting write-up of the movie:

http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0612,lim,72612,20.html

This part sounds promising:

"'We were always conscious of the Stand and Deliver/ Dangerous Minds scenario, and trying to avoid the clichés of that genre'"

This part, not so much, but who knows?:

"The film splices in brief history lessons, delivered to camera by the students, ranging from Pinochet to Brown v. Board of Ed."

comment #14

Bridup says ...

Let's be honest here. He's not gonna come out and say it, but Nicol D is calling this movie "PC" because it has black people in it. Otherwise, why he would slam a poster for doing something DIFFERENT is beyond me. God forbid!

comment #15

Nicol D says ...

Pinochet, Brown vs Board of Ed?

I can feel the PC Che love comin' from this flick hard now?

Brief history lessons told to the camera by students?

Read as: lefty propaganda told to the camera by inner city children so we know how oppressed they are and how evil the capitalist, corporate, racist regime is.

A quick trip to IMDB and a look at the director's shorts career proves me correct.

Understand I am not saying this film should not be made...but that my initial interpretaion of the poster was correct.

The 'indie PC' style is every bit as indentifiable as a Bruckheimer film, a Jim Carrey comedy or a Vivid Video Production. One glance and you know what you're gonna get.

comment #16

akabob says ...

I'm not sure PC is what Hollywood has become, and this may just be splitting hairs, but it strikes me more as a Corporate fearfulness concerned with maximizing profits by not upsetting or challenging any of their (ugh) demographic. Same end result, though. The poster does look good, lousy title (at least before I see it). Indie films need to try and entertain instead of blandly satisfying their (ugh) demographic. And Nicol, anyone who not only sees, but likes the great, and highly underrated, "French Connection II" gets a free pass from me. "I'd rather be a lamppost in New York City, than the President of France." - Popeye Doyle

comment #17

Nicol D says ...

Bridup...

"Let's be honest here. He's not gonna come out and say it, but Nicol D is calling this movie "PC" because it has black people in it. "

I think you missed the mantra class that day.

The whole phrase is not just 'racist' but 'racist-misogynist-homophobe'.

Say it three times fast then call it to me again.

I feel when I only get one of the three you're not really trying. You're also letting your peers down.

And remember...based on everything we know about this flick so far...I'm right.

comment #18

guy steele says ...

So... this isn' the forum for Poster Art discussion?!

Sweet J!

Film doesn't interest me at all. And Yes I like some art/indie movies and Ryan is a very interesting actor that said just because it's arty, indie and low budget doesnt't a interesting or good movie make.

We have seen this story played out before. But you can say that of so many films. One I mentioned in my first post on this subject was my vote for worse poster so far this year The Oh in Ohio. I enjoyed that indie film for what it was and how it told it's somewhat original story. But that poster... UUGHH!

This poster for Nelson isn't bad. It conveys enough about the film that you need to know. But I like the way the art is used in a indie title like Motel from this year.

There I just had it both ways... a comment on Half Nelson and comments on Poster Art which started this thread.

comment #19

Fletch says ...

This is my first time on this site. I'm excited to join this dialogue of other like-minded gay republicans. I've been wanting for a long time now to join a cool group of cinema-haters and rant endlessly about hollywood liberalism in front of the safe confines of my home computer. Did you guys hear Michael Moore and George Clooney just adopted a little Black crackbaby? Haha! Hey Nicol D! I can't wait to read what you write next. This is all so new and exciting!

comment #20

CCA says ...

"PC Che love"?

Che would take you out back and shoot you. Is that now "PC"? Word!

comment #21

guy steele says ...

Fletch: I'm a gay republican? But I'm married! Do I have to turn in my elephant card for a Donkey's ass?

comment #22

Eric Lavallee says ...

I'll agree on that it is one of the better posters of the year - but also one of the best films I've seen so far this year. For those who might be concerned - this one avoids cliche.

comment #23

Nicol D says ...

Fletch,

"Did you guys hear Michael Moore and George Clooney just adopted a little Black crackbaby? "

Can I assume it was a civil ceremony?

comment #24

jesse says ...

Nicol,

Uh-oh, I'm on a fine line, I better back off and defer to you.

I recall at least one comment where you talked about how some of Superman Returns' flaws struck you even more the second time. I remember it struck me as odd that you went back to see it again, and perhaps I missed the comments where you praised and defended it. But I defnitely saw months' worth of comments talking about how you knew the movie wouldn't be good enough based on all of the materials so far, deadbeat dads, too PC, blah blah blah. And then a post after you saw it mentioning ways in which it was exactly as you had predicted. If

How was that a "cheapy" crack at Mel Gibson? I would think a cheap one would say something about him being crazy, or something. I was seriously asking you to exclude his movie when mentioning a recent movie you liked, because you've made your love (and sympathy) for Gibson abundantly clear. If anything, it was a crack at you and your view of Gibson, not the man himself.

And if I "misquoted" you, (though I actually didn't quote you at all, so I'm not sure how that term works) you misunderstood my question. I was asking for a recent movie, not a movie you watched recently, that you liked. I ask because I'm actually curious -- your comments are characterized so heavily by complaining about PC Hollywood that I'm honestly curious if you have liked any recent movies, or if you consider everything since 1980 to be a ruinous disappointment. See, I'm trying to get a sense, through examples, of whether your argument is too broad to be taken seriously. I'd especially be interested to hear your recommendations for indie movies of the past 5-10 years. Or is the very act of making an indie film too PC to bear?

I've also read several comments where you respond with the same combination of vagueness and "I don't need to respond to you" -- the implication being that everyone is taking cheap shots at you, and being condescending, etc. It's an easy trick to avoid addressing whatever half of that person's comment you aren't able to argue against effectively. Yet you have the temerity to close your post with a "next!" as if you've presented an actual argument.

I think Akabob has a great point -- that Hollywood has not become lefty or PC so much as fearful and inoffensive for profit-related reasons. I doubt anyone who is truly engrossed in politics, even/especially those with super-lefty views, would be too jazzed by the politics of most Hollywood movies (or even most indies), which are pretty generically centrist. So maybe many are "PC" in the sense of not directly offending anyone, but the idea that this is a practice beloved by liberals the world over.

If you really are talking about PC-ness as representing a spineless, vanilla approach to filmmaking without any particular political opinion, then I could even kindasorta agree with you. But in most cases people just use "political correctness" as a straw man -- or an excuse for movies or art or politicians or whatever not parroting their views.

comment #25

jesse says ...

Oops -- in my previous post, I cut off a sentence in the first full paragraph: "If you truly gave the film a chance and didn't simply say, 'Singer didn't get it; he made Superman too lefty-PC-unAmerican,' then hey, my mistake; I'm glad it surpassed your long-standing low expectations."

comment #26

oddDuck says ...

tht was a damn fine post, Jesse. i hope Nicol responds substantively.

comment #27

travis b. says ...

great post jesse. but don't hold your breath on nicol responding though. there have been several times when he (she?) has dismissed comments by me as "marxist" or "liberal college propaganda" and when i've given a rebuttal with proof of a comment or an idea, there was never a response.

regardless, great post. hopefully nicol does respond.

comment #28

CCA says ...

Mybe Nicole D's label maker done broke. We can only hope.

comment #29

LB says ...

I like how if you dislike Pinochet, you love Che. That's masterful logic at work there. What if you hate any murderous fuckwad despite their politics? Is that too PC?

comment #30

Nicol D says ...

Jesse,

I agree with you that most people use PC as a straw man...that most people do not understand what political correctness is and therefore have no idea how to use the term.

But 'your' post confirms this, not mine.

PC is not about being inoffensive.

PC is not about being bland and vanilla.

PC is not about not being raunchy and just following the money.

These are the common misconceptions.

PC, political correctness is a specific philosophy that takes the Marxist notions of economic ‘equality’ and applies them to the cultural notions of race, gender, class and sexual orientation.

It is a world view and one that Hollywood excels at. It is a form of censorship that is from the Marxist inspired cultural New Left as opposed to classical liberalism of which I would consider myself a part of.

See, the vast majority of Hollywood films are in fact not neutral at all. The underlying assumptions of them are very PC/left and it is reflected not in the stories that are told so much as in the stories that are not.

Political correctness is no stories being told about the horrors of communism but plenty of films with Che, Frida, John Reed and the like as heroes.

It is the fact that if there is a villain who is a politician in a film it will always be implied they are of the right and the good ones are of the left.

It is about Hollywood's obsession with the left-wing culture of the 60's (Bobby, Timothy Leary) but nothing about how Reagan won the cold war.

It is the fact that Christians and Catholics if portrayed at all are virtually all one dimensional villains and history always skewed to make it such in the most one dimensional of ways. Marxism is rooted in atheism.

It is the assumptions of history that are made (capitalism/America=evil, socialism/Marxism/communism=good).

It is the fact that films about college life still act as though everything is Animal House and left wing speech codes do not exist.

I saw Todd Phillips Road Trip on TV a month ago and the lead villain student in power who gives Brekin Meyer a hard time wears a 'God is Cool' T-Shirt.

WTF! At a modern day university a student wearing a 'God is Cool' t-shirt not only wouldn't have any power he would be kicked off campus and threatened with a hate crime charge.

In short, PC is not acknowledging the way the world really is but having to always play by the 'left-wing' rules that all evil only comes from the right or Christians, or capitalists or America etc.

PC is cultural Marxism and it comes from the left. If I call many modern left wing views Marxist, quite simply it is because they are.

I hope this answer is substantive enough for you.

Films I saw recently and enjoyed although not necessarily recent films:

Cars, Superman Returns, MI3, French Connection II, Capote, United 93, Pin, The Longest Day, Red River, The Brown Bunny, The Serpent's Egg, Path's of Glory, Rock and Rule, The Incredibles Kill Bill and many others.

'Indie' (as opposed to independant) films
I liked of the past decade...

Run Lola Run, Cube,Swingers,Brown Bunny, Buffalo 66,City of God,Memento, Mullholland Drive, Lost Highway and some others of that type.

An excellent but long essay on the history of political correctness can be found here.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/06/political-correctness-revenge-of.html

Hope this clarifies my points.

Travis B,

The problem with your argument is that it fails to take into account that the modern New Left does have Marxism as its root philosophy. I know that is a cold bone to swallow, but if you cannot accept that fundamental truth, it is hard to pursue a discussion otherwise.

If I have labeled some of your views as Marxist in the past, then it is most likely because you said things that were.

This is tough for the New Left to come to terms with.

You can't read only Marx in university and Marxist inspired writers, come out and regurgitate their views and then demand to be called neutral.

The worst part about leaving long posts like this is that

a) they can never be long enough

and

b) it won't matter. The next time this comes up you will forget/lie and just say I never respond, which most of the time I do.

Best

comment #31

Fletch says ...

Oh, I think I may have made a mistake about the kinds of people on this site. But I do think Nicol D and I share a common passion. A hatred for hollywood liberalism, which is destroying mankind, and polluting our films with irrelevant notions of freedom, compassion, and democracy. Modern cinema needs more visionaries like Mel Gibson and Leni Riefenstahl, artists who understand the importance of honor and national pride. I will stand with you, Nicol D! The people, united will never be defeated... by Hollywood liberalism.

comment #32

Nicol D says ...

Jesse, Travis B,

Read Fletch's post above where he equates Mel Gibson and Leni Reifenstahl...

...this is the kind of flake that hurts the New Left more than any passionate Marxist could.

comment #33

oddDuck says ...

Maybe I've been brainwashed by the Marxist-New Left mafia, but I frankly do not see what Nicol is talking about in most movies I watch (even including the indies). Also, has anyone noticed that Nicol almost invariably lays the Marxist card on those he argues with? That's shady. Dude, there's a HUGE difference between liberalism and Marxism, even though you argue otherwise.

comment #34

jesse says ...

Nicol, I'm about to jet for a few hours; I'll try to respond to your post in greater detail later. However, I would like to briefly take issue with the idea of political correctness as "a philosophy." Do you know anyone who actually identifies as "following the philosophy of political correctness"? Do you ever hear anyone saying "don't say/do/etc. that, it's not P.C.!" No -- in fact, you hear a lot more people saying stuff like "well, it may not be PC, but..."[it sure is funny/thought-provoking/entertaining/etc.] (often to describe cheesy Hollywood comedies that hang their would-be shock value on homophobia or racism, and then say anyone who doesn't think it's funny is just being PC.)

This is not to say someone has to self-identify to be following certain beliefs. But I think it hurts your argument that "political correctness" is a conscious philosophical choice.

comment #35

travis b. says ...

Nicol D -

I completely disagree with you. Not only that, but you deal with absolutes and terms and phrases that have no grounding in reality. have you ever heard of someone getting kicked out of a university because they wore a "God is cool" t-shirt, or believed in God? Both universities that i attended (and this was UCSB & Berkeley...two "liberal" schools) had organizations for every type of religion, not just Christianity and Catholicism, and all were welcomed and treated with equal respect. If you could show me some vaild proof (and not an opinion piece) of someone getting kicked out of school for showing a love for God then, fine, i can see where some of this vileness i coming from. But, to label every university as being anti-christian, anti-catholic, and pro-marxist just shows a lack of understanding of how a university works.

as for the constant 'marxist' calling...what is that? yeah, i went to a university. and yeah, i read the communist manifesto. but that's the only piece of "marxist literature" that was assigned and it was not used as a propaganda piece to compel people to become marxists, it was used to better help the students understand what they were studying, which was a class on the cold war. i've also taken a class on religion and was given the bible to read. it doesn't mean i'm automatically a christian. but it does give me a better viewpoint in understanding that aspect of humanity.

speaking of the cold war, your statement that reagan ended the cold war is false. yeah, he was a part of it, but there was far more going on than just reagan. but..that's another argument for another time.

as for my comments that i've made to you, you rarely have responded back in a logical tone, if at all. there was an argument that we had over "truth, justice, and the american way" in superman. you were arguing (some would say harping) about the issue, when i tried to explain to you the reasoning behind the term in the comics. to make it brief, i talked about the second world war, it's effect on comics, then the comics code authority as well as frederick wertham's seduction of the innocent which accused comics of causing juvenile delinquency and homosexuality. you refuted this as university liberal propaganda. when i came back with some citations and websites that had proof, there was no response.

but the thing that really bothers me is the constant negativity towards movies. everything is PC this, or marxist that. i understand that you want to see more films with a christian tone. but that doesn't meant that there are not quality flicks out there. the film above, based upon the poster, looks intriguing. how could you not see that? it is a great poster, and it does its job. and if it reflects the viewpoint of the writer and/or director, then what's the problem? i see tons of movies with characters that i like or don't care for. agree with their world view or disagree with their world view. but if the film is good and it's about che guevera, how does that make me a marxist? i paid good money, from my paycheck, which i receive while working for a job that is not for the good of the mother country, but for myself. that's capitalism nicol. and if i want to spend my money on a film about che, it does not mean that A.) i'm a marxist or B.) that i think he did these great things. it interests me and there is nothing wrong with that.

i'm getting long winded so i'm going to bring this to a close. but i must say this. the dialogue in which nicol d speaks, is frankly quite frightening and borderline facist. i'm sorry, but labelling everything marxist, the anti-university talk, and the tone of absolutism in everything this person says is such a slap in the face to the meaning behind art, film, and even this country. i'm glad that you're an anti-commie, flag waving, church going american. that's beautiful. but try to have an open mind and understand that there is more to everything than just black and white absolutes. and just because i don't agree with you, doesn't mean that i'm a marxist. and if that is your definition, then i suggest you maybe do some reading on the subject. you may learn something.

thanks for your time.

comment #36

Nicol D says ...

Jesse,

PC is actually not at all a 'conscious' political choice on behalf of the majority of people who practice it.

That is why it is so insidious and people who readily identify as liberal are so loathe to saying they are PC.

Like a true virus it has entered our culture through the academic left and most people have no idea what it entails...even most liberals or conservatives.

Remember, you yourself said most people do not understand PC and merely use it as a straw man.

I agreed. Now you must be open to hear arguments about that.

Please read the article I referenced.

Oddduck,

"Dude, there's a HUGE difference between liberalism and Marxism, even though you argue otherwise."

There is a huge difference between classical liberalism and Marxism. New left is cultural Marxism by another name.

If I am wrong, why will liberals never criticize people like Stalin, Che, Mao etc?

You have to ask these questions friend.

comment #37

travis b. says ...

every person that i know, liberal or conservative has never said one kind word about Stalin, Che, or Mao. just because they read on these people or watch movies concerning them (well...che) doesn't mean they follow their ideology. you need to seperate the two.

comment #38

jesse says ...

Nicol, you're using PC as a straw man, too. You're basically saying that anyone who believes certain things (or uses certain cliches in their movies -- and later I hope to discuss why many of the elements you listed as symptomatic of PC Hollywood are just lazy cliches, which is not the same thing!) is an unwitting carrier of the PC virus -- and that they will never admit to doing it because they don't understand what they're doing. Essentially, this allows you to argue that virtually anyone who disagrees with you is inherently part of the PC "movement."

And I agree with travis b. -- I don't know a single liberal, myself included, who would feel reluctant to criticize Stalin (or Mao or Che, for that matter... but Stalin is an especially bizarre point of reference; I can kindasorta see your point with Che -- although he's nowhere near as widely or universally praised as you would like/hate/love to believe -- but do you see a lot of young revolutionary types walking around with Stalin T-shirts??).

More later, I hope.

comment #39

travis b. says ...

not to beat a dead horse, but that gates of vienna piece from nicol d isn't necessarily a history of PC, but more of an opinion piece. huge difference.

i also question any site that states they are islamophobic and proud of it.

comment #40

Matt says ...

Do you guys even know who drew it? This guy Tze Chun drew it you should check him out.

comment #41

jesse says ...

Nicol,

Now that I have a little more time to respond:

-I did read through that article. I don't really want to respond to it here because I fear this would become a purely political discussion and I'd like to at least kinda keep the terms related to movies. I will say that what the author seems to take for granted as the gospel of "Political Correctness" reads more to me like a general freedom-of-speech issue. Yes, it is morally questionable for extremists on any side to wish to absolutely silence opposing voices in this country, but to characterize any behavior that could be construed as "politically correct" as snynonmous with that kind of extermism is patently ridiculous. Would it be better for citizens to feel wary of calling someone out as racist, if they felt the term applied, because it all smacks too heavily of being PC and/or Marxist and/or censoring people??

I do agree that the term "racist" should not be used lightly (as, in fact, many film critics do when they wish to haughtily dismiss a movie that deals with race). But to bundle all these issues under "political correctness is a virus" is a gross oversimplification.

And I agree with travis b's notes on the piece, too.

OK, onto the movie stuff.

"Political correctness is no stories being told about the horrors of communism but plenty of films with Che, Frida, John Reed and the like as heroes."

Those films are biographies, yes? Well, not strict biographies, but they're movies about an individual. So I could halfway see your point if you were pointing out an admired and/or interesting and/or controversial individual from history who suffered under communism and never got the biopic treatment. But to say "million suffered, and yet we get movies about these guys" doesn't cut it with me. Yes, generally we get movies about individuals, not generalities!

But even in those terms it's not a strong argument to say "they made a movie about Che Guevara, but not [soandso]" -- it's actually a common pet peeve of mine in film criticism: criticizing (or lamenting, rather) the movie the filmmakers (or in this case, "Hollywood" as a collective! Even though I don't think anyone would mistake the people behind Motorcycle Diaries, Reds, and Frida for a Hollywood clique) *didn't* make. This is not only unproductive, but impractical; I can think of a few reasons Salma Hayek might want to play Frida Kahlo over, say, a suffering peasant in communist Russia.

"It is the fact that if there is a villain who is a politician in a film it will always be implied they are of the right and the good ones are of the left."

I know you don't agree, but I still say most Hollywood movies are too ball-less about politics to make that kind of distinction. And what about this: filmmakers who are inclined to do something political are simply more likely to be left-skewing themselves. Isn't "keep politics out of entertainment"/"shut up and act"/etc. more of a rightie mantra, at least in the last decade or so? So I can see why there would be more left-leaning political movies without the insiduousness of the PC "virus."

"It is the fact that Christians and Catholics if portrayed at all are virtually all one dimensional villains and history always skewed to make it such in the most one dimensional of ways. Marxism is rooted in atheism."

Oh, really? Have you seen a lot of big Hollywood movies that celebrate atheism? There are a hell of a lot more movies about people having faith and keeping faith and recovering faith than losing faith, or never having it at all.

I'll grant you the Catholic thing -- that the Catholic church is often portrayed in terms of cartoonish horror or intrigue -- but as a cliche more than anything. By the same token, having the bad guy be or turn out to be someone in big business has become sort of a cliche, too.

But these ideas aren't inherently poor or offensive any more than having a funny black guy be a sidekick is poor or offensive... until they're *done* poorly, or repeatedly without much imagination (which amounts to the same thing).

Also, I'm a little disturbed how if someone or something is called racist, the "anti-PC" cops will say their free speech is being threatened... but if a *corporation* is called names, well then hold the phone, it's PC culture taking over and promoting their dogma! And, you know, undermining capitalism. You know what? Capitalism is tough. It can take it.

I just don't see Hollywood as pulsing with this oppressive PC currency; it's about the movies, not the politics, and a lot of the movies are hackneyed. I can say as a pinko-liberal-etc. that the "lefty" sensibility supposedly glowing from Hollywood gives me little-to-no satisfaction in my day-to-day life.

You and I like a lot of the same movies. So why do you harp so sourly on ideological crapola when you could be talking about the actual movies intead? About how the *poster* for an indie movie portends nothing but the "indie PC thing."