Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Right fights back
Hollywood Reporter ^ | 06/07/05 | Paul Bond

Posted on 06/07/2005 1:45:04 PM PDT by Pikamax

Right fights back Conservative filmmakers struggle to make their voices heard amid what they call a hostile Hollywood environment.

By Paul Bond Between the lines

Forget about whether Fox's "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith" contains vague attacks on the Bush administration -- there are plenty of less-nuanced examples of antagonism toward Republicans in mainstream movies. So says a new breed of politically conservative filmmakers who, tired of waiting for Hollywood executives to give 'em a break, are creating companies to make and distribute their Republican-friendly works. And lest there be doubt about their political agenda, they have given the companies such names as American Pride Films Group and RightSide Video.

Some outnumbered Republican entertainment workers not only yearn for equal access to filmmaking in famously left-leaning Hollywood but also consider themselves at war against a hostile left-wing majority, with battles being waged on the Internet, in books, at film festivals and even in nightclubs (hence a comedy troupe named the Right Stuff). They're even -- gasp! -- organizing in groups like the Hollywood Congress of Republicans, which sponsors luncheons at which celebrities including Ben Stein and Morgan Brittany offer moral support to a like-minded political minority that is sick of being mocked by industry taste-setters.

"Some liberals in the entertainment industry are such schoolyard bullies that even my liberal friends are horrified at their behavior," says Cheryl Rhoads, best known for playing the title role in the 1987 video compilation "The Mother Goose Treasury."

Rhoads is authoring a book about being a conservative in Hollywood, in which she tells stories like one about the time when, on the set of a network TV show, an executive shouted, "Anyone who votes Republican is so fired!"

"If she had said it about homosexuals, there would have been lawsuits," Rhoads says.

Complains Namrata Singh Gujral, who co-founded APFG with Lt. Cmdr. Joe Cooper, a military screenwriting consultant and Naval Reserve pilot who recently was deployed to the Middle East, "I read about President Bush asking Hollywood to help with America's image after the (Sept. 11) terrorist attacks, but I didn't see a flurry of films."

APFG's first project is the $5 million production "Americanizing Shelley," a script Gujral and Cooper shopped around Hollywood before opting to make themselves. Gujral says one executive blanched at the movie's ending because the main character abandons her dislike of the United States, while another dismissed the film with the proclamation, "I'm ashamed to be an American."

APFG is next readying a $25 million movie about the recent conflict in Iraq and a $25 million science fiction film, both of which will portray the U.S. in a favorable light.

"We're nonpartisan, but we're lumped into the Republican Party for being pro-American," Gujral says. "That's unfortunate."

David Goodman created RightSide Video, a unit of his DVD Acquisition and Development Group, last year at about the same time "Fahrenheit 9/11" surpassed $100 million at the U.S. boxoffice and Michael Moore was the darling of the Democratic Party. While attending the American Film Renaissance -- the nation's first conservative film festival -- in Dallas in September, Goodman heard a speech in which film critic and talk-radio host Michael Medved praised the audience of right-leaning filmmakers.

"Several people, holding up finished DVDs in their hands, thanked Medved for his encouragement then complained that they couldn't find distribution," Goodman says. "I stood up and said, 'Here I am.'"

Goodman struck deals at the AFR to distribute the DVDs "The Seeds of Western Civilization," "Mega Fix" and "Is It True What They Say About Ann?" The latter, a documentary helmed by Elinor Burkett and Patrick Wright about best-selling conservative author Ann Coulter, quickly sold more than 10,000 copies at $20 apiece and is on shelves at Barnes & Noble and Borders, among other retailers (though all RightSide titles sell best on the Internet).

While acknowledging that moving a few-thousand copies of a right-leaning DVD in a few months' time will not impress a Hollywood mogul, Goodman notes that sales of his merchandise are consistent.

"I don't have catalog titles and new releases -- just catalog -- and I market it every day," he says.

Goodman was one of 4,000 AFR attendees last year, according to AFR co-founder Jim Hubbard. Several of the two-dozen movies screened there subsequently unspooled at the Liberty Film Festival -- an unrelated event that bills itself as Hollywood's first conservative film festival -- and Hubbard says his event already has spawned a sister festival in Little Rock, Ark., with others on the drawing board in Kansas City, Mo., and Washington.

Winning awards from the Renaissance and Liberty festivals last year was Stephen K. Bannon's documentary "In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word and Deed" from Leo McWatkins Films, a company co-founded by Tim Watkins, whose Renegade Prods. makes about 30 commercials a year for clients including Time Warner and Comcast. Watkins believes that Mel Gibson proved with 2004's "The Passion of the Christ" that Christian conservatives will flock to theaters for movies that interest them, "but there's not enough inventory to keep them coming back."

"Face of Evil" was made for $1 million and includes 1914 footage of Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and 1919 footage of Soviet Premier Vladimir Lenin. Watkins boasts that the film earned an average of $9,000 a screen during its opening weekend in six Dallas theaters, compared with the $900 opening-weekend per-screen tally for "Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry," a favorable evaluation of the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate's war service that was released at about the same time.

Watkins is building a 25,000-square-foot studio in Baltimore that will focus on making Christian- and family-themed movies and TV shows, and he has produced a reality TV pilot titled "Grace Before Meals," featuring a personable chef who helps families learn to cook and happens to be a Catholic priest. Watkins' next film, "Atomic Iran," is based on a novel by Jerome Corsi, co-author of "Unfit for Command" -- a book that, according to many Democratic pundits, cost Kerry the election.

Then there's Evan Coyne Maloney, who gained attention in 2003 by pointing a camera at protesters before the U.S. attacked Iraq and asking them to explain their concerns. The humorous result is one of a series of short films he has posted on the Internet.

Maloney and a couple of partners then founded On the Fence Films, which has begun to earn acclaim for "Brainwashing 101," a documentary that spotlights political correctness on college campuses and plays primarily -- where else? -- on college campuses.

"People making documentaries today are primarily on the left, so stories that don't interest them would go untold," Maloney says.

Several clubs catering to entertainment-industry Republicans also are springing up, allowing conservatives to congregate. Members say such forums are necessary because they are outnumbered by outwardly hostile liberals, and some will not even reveal their political leanings for fear of reprisal.

"I do the dance, trying to figure out who the fellow conservatives are when we're all afraid to speak up," says Steve Finefrock, who executive-produced short films for the Department of Homeland Security before moving to Hollywood and working as a production assistant.

Finefrock and his ilk get no sympathy from prolific writer-producer Larry Gelbart, whose credits include the classic TV sitcom "M*A*S*H," the 1977 feature "Oh, God!" and the 1982 feature "Tootsie."

"Bullshit!" Gelbart replies, when asked if liberals make things difficult for conservatives in Hollywood. "If you're not strong enough to support a Republican administration out loud, then you're a wimp."

Gelbart, conservative writer Lionel Chetwynd and others are set to hash out their differences June 21 at Level One restaurant in Los Angeles during an event sponsored by Finefrock's newly founded Hollywood Conservative Forum. Ask Finefrock for examples of Hollywood's liberal slant, and he rattles off films endlessly: An uptight preacher in 1984's "Footloose" has a conservative American town so juiced up that it outlaws dancing; the character representing the U.S. Marines in 1999's "American Beauty" is portrayed mostly as a homophobic lunatic; Communism is lionized in movies such as 1981's "Reds" and 2004's "The Motorcycle Diaries"; employees always come off as heroes (think 1979's "Norma Rae"), and the "system" is always evil (1987's "Wall Street"); and 1987's "Dirty Dancing" extols the virtues of abortion and 1990's "Pretty Woman" the normalcy of prostitution.

And don't get him started on Brian De Palma's classic 1976 horror film "Carrie."

"Carrie has been made a geek by her mother's overprotectiveness and wackiness, again derived from religion -- specifically Christianity," Finefrock says. "We're still waiting for the dysfunctional-family movie derived from bad Islam."

That's nonsense, according to Gelbart.

"When I watch movies I'm not looking for a political agenda, nor do I see one," he says.

Gelbart does acknowledge a pet peeve expressed by Finefrock and many other Hollywood conservatives: No executive today is willing to greenlight a movie that portrays extreme Islamists as the enemy (though check out Fox's 1994 actioner "True Lies" to see none other than current California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger going head-to-head with crazed jihadists). But Gelbart believes that is a pragmatic decision having little to do with politics.

"You make a radical Muslim mad, and he won't rip off your bumper sticker, he'll rip off your bumper -- then your car will be found in another state, and he'll put a fatwa on you," he says. "I think fearing for your life is a pretty good reason not to do it."

Gelbart traces the entertainment industry's liberal slant to something everyone in Hollywood can understand: economics. One can say what they will about the agenda behind "Carrie," "Footloose" or "Pretty Woman," but all of those movies scored at the boxoffice as few "conservative-oriented" films have.

Are those on the left inherently more skilled at producing mainstream entertainment? Do conservative filmmakers simply need more opportunities? Gelbart offers one possible answer.

"Nobody ever sat down and said, 'Let's make a bunch of lefty movies,'" he says. "List the artistic people on the left and those on the right, and compare their work: Those on the left are more creative."

Published June 07, 2005


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: hollywood; hollywoodright; moviereview

1 posted on 06/07/2005 1:45:04 PM PDT by Pikamax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
"List the artistic people on the left and those on the right, and compare their work: Those on the left are more creative." What??......
2 posted on 06/07/2005 1:51:59 PM PDT by Hi Heels (Guns kill and cause crime? Dang, mine must be malfunctioning....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowboy_code; RonDog

Ping


3 posted on 06/07/2005 1:52:22 PM PDT by Hi Heels (Guns kill and cause crime? Dang, mine must be malfunctioning....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Ask Finefrock for examples of Hollywood's liberal slant, and he rattles off films endlessly: An uptight preacher in 1984's "Footloose" has a conservative American town so juiced up that it outlaws dancing; the character representing the U.S. Marines in 1999's "American Beauty" is portrayed mostly as a homophobic lunatic; Communism is lionized in movies such as 1981's "Reds" and 2004's "The Motorcycle Diaries"; employees always come off as heroes (think 1979's "Norma Rae"), and the "system" is always evil (1987's "Wall Street"); and 1987's "Dirty Dancing" extols the virtues of abortion and 1990's "Pretty Woman" the normalcy of prostitution.

And don't get him started on Brian De Palma's classic 1976 horror film "Carrie."


I hate group think like this. Carrie was a faithful adaptation of the Stephen King novel so the blame for the characterization should go to him. 'Reds' reflects Warren Beatty's obsessions not some monolithic system (that film had trouble getting financing) And he obviously didn't watch Footloose to the end where the Preacher is shown as a genuinely good person. And fighting the 'system' is bad? Everyone does it everyday.
4 posted on 06/07/2005 1:52:32 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hi Heels

The sad truth is that not enough conservatives go into the film industry because of knee jerk condemnation of it amongst a certain segment of conservatives who distrust the Arts. I remember posts here from people trying to get financing for a conservative themed film project and couldn't get anyone interested conservatives included. They wanted nothing to do with 'Hollyweird'


5 posted on 06/07/2005 1:54:36 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
"Bullshit!" Gelbart replies, when asked if liberals make things difficult for conservatives in Hollywood. "If you're not strong enough to support a Republican administration out loud, then you're a wimp."

Gelbrat is correct here. Hollywood conservatives need to express themselves the way every other American conservative does. They're in the business of communication, and if they're too wimpy to make only movies that match their values, what good are they? "When I watch movies I'm not looking for a political agenda, nor do I see one," he says.

Now it's Gelbart who's full of bull. To say the lib agenda isn't rampant in Hollywood product is just laughable.

Hollywood Conservatives need to live with the courage of their convictions, or they're no more conservative than the RINOs in congress.

6 posted on 06/07/2005 1:54:51 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dems, the annoying vegetarians of politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

All Art has a political/moral/sociological agenda. It's always based on certain assumptions about the world.


7 posted on 06/07/2005 1:56:08 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Gelbart, with his eyes squeezed shut and his fingers in his ears said, in between chanting "la-la-LA-LA-LA I can't hear you",
    "When I watch movies I'm not looking for a political agenda, nor do I see one,"

Gelbart does acknowledge...No executive today is willing to greenlight a movie that portrays extreme Islamists as the enemy... But Gelbart believes that is a pragmatic decision having little to do with politics.

    "You make a radical Muslim mad, and he won't rip off your bumper sticker, he'll rip off your bumper -- then your car will be found in another state, and he'll put a fatwa on you," he says. "I think fearing for your life is a pretty good reason not to do it."

And thus, you [Gelbart] spineless weasel, they win.
8 posted on 06/07/2005 1:56:11 PM PDT by CzarChasm (My opinion. No charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
I wish we could find out who said: "I'm ashamed to be an American."

He needs a good freeping.

9 posted on 06/07/2005 1:58:12 PM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

Yep. Boyfriend is in the business. All the republicans glow in the dark they're so obvious amongst the rest.


10 posted on 06/07/2005 1:58:25 PM PDT by Hi Heels (Guns kill and cause crime? Dang, mine must be malfunctioning....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Borges
Fighting the good fight.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1352453/posts

11 posted on 06/07/2005 1:59:59 PM PDT by Hi Heels (Guns kill and cause crime? Dang, mine must be malfunctioning....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hi Heels

Well I was thinking more in terms of actually making films as opposed to protesting other people's. :-)


12 posted on 06/07/2005 2:01:08 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Borges
I odn't understand why you call it groupthink. Whether one agrees with the points made, they're legitimate ones.

The movie Carrie altered the character from the book, who was as much a brutal abuser as she was a religious wacko. Hollywood producers don't just shrug and say "Well, it was in the book, so we HAVE to make her a religious wacko." They played up those elements in the movie, and they had every right to remove them if they wanted. They made the movie, they can't go crying "But it was in the book!" when they made the conscious decision to retain those elements while removing others (the newspaper accounts and the post-fire investigation, for example, are simply eliminated, as are many character moments).

Reds was as described--I don't see why this is groupthink. Communism was lionized in that movie, and it was a Hollywood movie. Where's the groupthink?

The Footloose preacher is also as described--he's a cliched character who "outlaws dancing". That's not groupthink, that's the way it is in the movie. An "awww, he's really a nice guy" add-on explaining his behavior doesn't change the behavior. Do people think of that character as a hero or a slobbering cliche of a preacher?

The person quoted doesn't say fighting the system is bad; he merely points out that the system, and big business, are ALWAYS shown as evil. That's a good or bad thing, but it's true--are 99% of movies about how GOOD the US system is?

13 posted on 06/07/2005 2:01:58 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dems, the annoying vegetarians of politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Borges

Of course. I don't see your point, though.


14 posted on 06/07/2005 2:02:40 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dems, the annoying vegetarians of politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CzarChasm

Gelbard admits he's a coward, then says he has a right to be.
But I have heard Hollywwod for the last 2 years decry that censorship is the fault of George Bush. Gelbard is clearly the censor here, he admits it.

Hollywood is trash for the most part.

But nobody listed "Team America/World Police" which was definately pro-American, anti-Terrorism.


15 posted on 06/07/2005 2:04:34 PM PDT by wrathof59 ("to the Everlasting Glory of the Infantry".........Robert A Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hi Heels
""List the artistic people on the left and those on the right, and compare their work: Those on the left are more creative." "

Actually not.. Political thought and creativity have nothing to do with each other. Those on the 'left' may seem more successful in creative endeavors because they tend to follow pop culture type trends more, and thus often create something that sells more. In terms of creativity, the 'left' is good at creating movements, the 'right' is more individual and task focused.

One also cannot narrowly define creativity as limited to film, music, art, etc. The businessperson who takes $5,000 in savings and creates a successful store has to be creative. Marketing and advertising professionals are often accused of selling out art by the 'left', but they must be, and have the privilege of being creative in their job every day.

I was at a gallery show the other week by a famous photographer. He does a lot of commercial work as well as art photography. He was asked by an obvious 'progressive' in the crowd (the 'Boycott Corporate Food' shirt gave him away..) what he felt about selling out to the corporate world and big business every time he does a commercial job.
The photographer quickly scolded him and said basically, thank God for the corporate world, they keep us fed... The real error of artists is they somehow want to separate themselves from 'real life' and make themselves special when in reality, everyone has an artist within...
16 posted on 06/07/2005 2:04:51 PM PDT by mnehring (http://www.mlearningworld.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Borges

I think we should do both....


17 posted on 06/07/2005 2:06:38 PM PDT by Hi Heels (Guns kill and cause crime? Dang, mine must be malfunctioning....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
The Groupthink is that every movie regardless of who made it or the circumstances surrounding it's behind made is always part of some monolithic system and is really what 'Hollywood' thinks. I attribute art to the creator and no one else. The character in the movie was an abuser as well. She's certainly not what anyone would take to be a run of the mill Christian. I would say that Reds showed how Communism eventually betrayed the working class they were supposed to represent. The Preacher from Footloose turns out to be a noble character albeit overly protective. I think people left the movie thinking that.
18 posted on 06/07/2005 2:07:51 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

I mean that Gelbart claiming that he doesn't look for a political agenda is beside the point. It's always there.


19 posted on 06/07/2005 2:09:51 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

I didn't think the sentence made any sense at all. Reminds me of that Johnny Cash song. "The one on the right was, in the middle and the one in the middle was, on the top...."


20 posted on 06/07/2005 2:10:00 PM PDT by Hi Heels (Guns kill and cause crime? Dang, mine must be malfunctioning....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Soon all actors will be replaced with computer graphics.

It won't be a problem then.


21 posted on 06/07/2005 2:11:39 PM PDT by hang 'em (Homos, muslims and RATs = coalition of the perverted, insane and retarded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: All

Gelbart doesn't see an agenda. He probably doesn't.

But, there is a liberal worldview conveyed in these pictures. All you have to do is watch a few movies, and it won't take you long to see who the good characters are, and who are the villains. Even in the comedies, the villains ultimately see the error of their ways, and they convert.

If you haven't seen Meet the Fockers, that's a perfect example. Look who the film shows as the characters we should be sympathetic to: a couple who arranged and approved of the maid boinking their adolescent son. They thought it would be a good first experience for him.

The good presidents are always liberal, but the corrupt ones are conservative.


22 posted on 06/07/2005 2:13:42 PM PDT by Madeleine Ward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Madeleine Ward
The good presidents are always liberal, but the corrupt ones are conservative.


My name is Bob Rumson...and I'm running for President!
23 posted on 06/07/2005 2:17:14 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Borges
The good presidents are always liberal, but the corrupt ones are conservative.

Hmmmmm... My take on the recent presidents, ignoring current administrations because I know the left will roll their eyes.. lets look at the past few Presidents.

Clinton (D)- Corrupt
Bush Sr(R)- Clean, semi effective
Reagan(R)- Clean as a whistle, effective
Carter(R)- Inept, possibly corrupt, especially after he left office)
Ford(R)- Clean, ineffective
Nixon(R)- Corrupt, jury will always be out on if he was effective.
LBJ (D)- Corrupt, ineffective
Kennedy(D)- I'll say clean as most corruption charges surround conspiracy theories, effective
Eisenhower (R)- Clean, effective
Truman (D)- Clean, semi-effective (effective wartime, ineffective post war)

I would like to know what D's the left thinks are 'good' presidents and what (besides the obvious Nixon) the left think is corrupt...
24 posted on 06/07/2005 2:31:24 PM PDT by mnehring (http://www.mlearningworld.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
"Bullshit!" Gelbart replies, when asked if liberals make things difficult for conservatives in Hollywood. "If you're not strong enough to support a Republican administration out loud, then you're a wimp."

"You make a radical Muslim mad, and he won't rip off your bumper sticker, he'll rip off your bumper -- then your car will be found in another state, and he'll put a fatwa on you," he says. "I think fearing for your life is a pretty good reason not to do it."

Sooooo, he's a whimp?

25 posted on 06/07/2005 2:36:59 PM PDT by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
"When I watch movies I'm not looking for a political agenda, nor do I see one," Gelbart says.

But then again, fish don't look for water, nor do they see it.

26 posted on 06/07/2005 2:38:38 PM PDT by Zhangliqun (What are intellectuals for but to complexify the obvious?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
"Bullshit!" Gelbart replies, when asked if liberals make things difficult for conservatives in Hollywood. "If you're not strong enough to support a Republican administration out loud, then you're a wimp."

snip

Gelbart does acknowledge a pet peeve expressed by Finefrock and many other Hollywood conservatives: No executive today is willing to greenlight a movie that portrays extreme Islamists as the enemy (though check out Fox's 1994 actioner "True Lies" to see none other than current California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger going head-to-head with crazed jihadists). But Gelbart believes that is a pragmatic decision having little to do with politics. "You make a radical Muslim mad, and he won't rip off your bumper sticker, he'll rip off your bumper -- then your car will be found in another state, and he'll put a fatwa on you," he says. "I think fearing for your life is a pretty good reason not to do it."

Gelbart the wimp.

27 posted on 06/07/2005 2:40:02 PM PDT by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Two great minds...we both caught it. :-)


28 posted on 06/07/2005 2:43:59 PM PDT by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CzarChasm
No executive today is willing to greenlight a movie that portrays extreme Islamists as the enemy . . .

Gelbart believes that is a pragmatic decision having little to do with politics. "You make a radical Muslim mad, and he won't rip off your bumper sticker, he'll rip off your bumper -- then your car will be found in another state, and he'll put a fatwa on you," he says. "I think fearing for your life is a pretty good reason not to do it."

. . . Gelbart replies, when asked if liberals make things difficult for conservatives in Hollywood. "If you're not strong enough to support a Republican administration out loud, then you're a wimp."

Our "intrepid" Mr. Gelbart courageously cries "BS!" when conservatives complain of pressure - but then announces that when it comes to opposing someone who is actually dangerous, he is a conscientious objector - a devout coward. In that context, Mr. Gelbart, any negative insinuation against any religion that doesn't intimidate you is a half-truth. And a very big lie.
"List the artistic people on the left and those on the right, and compare their work: Those on the left are more creative."
Well, Mr. Gelbart, at least we know they aren't courageous. Maybe they are just more commercial. All it takes to be commercial is superficiality, negativity, and arrogance. Newspapers prove that every day.

29 posted on 06/07/2005 2:47:22 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Is the study of politics an art? Or a science.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,947793,00.html


30 posted on 06/07/2005 2:49:43 PM PDT by tumblindice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
an excellent point - no hesitation to denigrate the followers of truly peaceful religions; what courage!
31 posted on 06/07/2005 3:02:46 PM PDT by CzarChasm (My opinion. No charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
In claiming that liberals are more creative, Larry Gelbart states a fallacy rooted in arrogance and the fact that he lives in a liberal echo chamber. He and all his friends are liberals, and they know their work is better than anyone else's, so therefore, liberals must be more creative than anyone else. It's the same reason that liberals tend to believe liberal men are better in bed: they've repeated that canard for so many years in the liberal-owned media in hopes of convincing women of it. It's a phallic fallacy.

I happen to be a "creative" person (I've written advertising, TV, home video, two published books, and for the past 14 years, a daily radio comedy service). I know lots of other creative people who, like me, avoid Hollywood because they find the politics and lifestyle repulsive. We've just found other avenues for our creativity in more hospitable fields. It hardly means we are less creative than the cretins turning out the junk coming from Hollywood. If I thought my work weren't more creative than the cliche-ridden dreck in movie theaters (box office down for the 16th straight weekend and counting), the simplistic and ham-handed leftist twaddle I'm forced to sit through in live theaters as a local drama awards judge, or the garbage that pollutes most of our TV outlets ("Tonight on the Reality Channel: Paris Hilton eats a horse rectum!"), I'd just slit my wrists and get it over with.

BTW, if Gelbart calls Republicans wimps when they fear destroying their careers by supporting Bush out loud, then why does he think it's perfectly excusable pragmatism for Hollywood studios to be afraid to criticize Muslims out loud? Bit of hypocrisy there, Lar?

32 posted on 06/07/2005 3:03:23 PM PDT by HHFi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Gelbart traces the entertainment industry's liberal slant to something everyone in Hollywood can understand: economics. One can say what they will about the agenda behind "Carrie," "Footloose" or "Pretty Woman," but all of those movies scored at the boxoffice as few "conservative-oriented" films have.

In 1960, it was estimated that upwards of 90% of Americans went to the movies on a regular basis. By 1990, I believe that it had fallen to somewhere between 20% and 30% (these figures are from my fallible memory, so I could be wrong, but I believe that I'm in the ballpark here).

While movie prices going up through the roof has something to do with this, it might also be pointed out the style of the movies prior to the 60's was more family-oriented than the style of movies today.
33 posted on 06/07/2005 3:06:20 PM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

""Bullshit!" Gelbart replies, when asked if liberals make things difficult for conservatives in Hollywood. "If you're not strong enough to support a Republican administration out loud, then you're a wimp.""

As opposed to those in Hollywood who supported Communism. If they did that out loud, they were "wimps" and "sellouts", and only by refusing to admit it would they be considered "heroes".

Qwinn


34 posted on 06/07/2005 3:16:48 PM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges
"... he obviously didn't watch Footloose to the end where the Preacher is shown as a genuinely good person..."

In this movie - just like countless other examples of this standard lib pap - the big, bad conservative is shown to become a good and decent person only when they become enlightened to progressive/permissive/hedonistic non-values. They must see the 'error of their ways'.

The continually repeated message is that problems are caused by moral values. Problems are only solved through (and happiness is only created through) casting the values aside, and 'lightening up'.

35 posted on 06/07/2005 3:44:19 PM PDT by WireAndWood (But first, the tranya. I hope that you relish it as much as I.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WireAndWood
If you equate having a High school dance as 'progressive/permissive/hedonistic non-values.' then you're correct. 'Footloose' was the Devil's work.
36 posted on 06/07/2005 3:46:23 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch
There is also much more competition for people's time and money these days then there was in the 40s when movie going was at an all time high.
37 posted on 06/07/2005 3:48:53 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: HHFi
I know lots of other creative people who, like me, avoid Hollywood because they find the politics and lifestyle repulsive.

This is exactly what I said earlier. Conservatives generally avoid the film making business to the detriment of the overall product. Contrary to what many people think, Hollywood isn't the only place in America that makes films. People like Kevin Smith and Richard Linklater have financed movies on their credit card.
38 posted on 06/07/2005 3:55:36 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Borges

Well maybe this is the way to make a difference. Who wants to suppost a bunch you KNOW is going to insult you. This group sounds like the answer. One giant success and all is well. Money will follow money. The start-up money is the problem. But that can be rectified by presenting a marketable project.


39 posted on 06/07/2005 3:56:02 PM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
forget it, i've had it with Hollywood.

I say tax all profit above $1,000,000 on a movie at a 90% since the pinkos think the rich should be paying more anyway.
40 posted on 06/07/2005 3:56:51 PM PDT by Nyboe (From God we receive both our freedom and morality. A Godless society will have neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marty60

Anyone who's willing to hustle can get a movie made cheap(Kevin Smith, Linklater, Taratino).


41 posted on 06/07/2005 4:01:27 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Must be an OJ jury. Nixon was a great commie fighter. And EFFECTIVE.


42 posted on 06/07/2005 4:25:52 PM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: marty60
The lefties also refuse to admit that he ended the Vietnam war.. (which I think was a bad thing considering the million or so people that were killed by the North Vietnamese after we left..) Of course, we have all the bureaucracy he added... such as OSHA..

The left is actually trying to re-write history about Nixon and blame him for Carter's oil problems. The other night I watched Oil Storm and my jaw almost dropped when they tried to relate Nixon to the gas shortages, as if it happened on his watch..
43 posted on 06/07/2005 4:57:42 PM PDT by mnehring (http://www.mlearningworld.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

"You make a radical Muslim mad, and he won't rip off your bumper sticker, he'll rip off your bumper -- then your car will be found in another state, and he'll put a fatwa on you," he says. "I think fearing for your life is a pretty good reason not to do it."

Is that the same "man" who described conservatives who are afraid to speak up as "wimps"?


44 posted on 06/07/2005 5:10:23 PM PDT by winner3000 (part)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll

What a stupid, unthoughtful, and boorish remark. The actors are not the problem. Let's not throughout the baby with the dirty bathwater, chum.
Let's kill the "all actors are rich" myth here. Only a very FEW are making huge amounts of money or are now producing their own films with their own companies. Even fewer make a comfortable living for their families. BUT, 99.1% of those hard working human actors never make enough money each year to qualify for their union's health insurance or pension which is set at $7,500 a year. And many more of their yearly taxable income on tax forms qualify them at below federal poverty level. That is why many of them have subsistance other jobs like in the service industries.
Please stop continuing to WRONGFULLY catagorize actors as the problem here. Many times it's the mega-star actor/producers who are the culprits, NOT the working actor.
Govt website LINK:
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos093.htm


45 posted on 06/07/2005 5:27:58 PM PDT by cowboy_code (Live by the Code!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
The only thing I didn't like that Nixon did was the wage freeze. I was working for Ma Bell at the time and our raises were to go into effect the day AFTER he instituted the freeze. Do you know the Union actually argued with Ma Bell about moving the raise date up a week. I hate unions.

The company went ahead and gave us the raises. And I never forgot it when the next strike vote came. Anyone that sat in Gas lines on their assigned day to get gas, knew EXACTLY WHO was responsible for the problem. and his name was Jimmah "one term" Carter.

46 posted on 06/07/2005 6:21:59 PM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: winner3000

That's him! :) John Cleese expressed the same sentiment once, but he had the guts to say something like "We make fun of the church because we know we will only get some complaints, but the Muslims will kill you." I don't recall the original context, but Cleese made himself look not so admirable--he could dish it out, but he could take it, too.


47 posted on 06/07/2005 6:37:05 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dems, the annoying vegetarians of politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Borges
The Groupthink is that every movie regardless of who made it or the circumstances surrounding it's behind made is always part of some monolithic system and is really what 'Hollywood' thinks. I attribute art to the creator and no one else. The character in the movie was an abuser as well. She's certainly not what anyone would take to be a run of the mill Christian. I would say that Reds showed how Communism eventually betrayed the working class they were supposed to represent. The Preacher from Footloose turns out to be a noble character albeit overly protective. I think people left the movie thinking that.

It's not groupthink to simply point out that it just so happens that 99% of Hollywood product is anti-Christian. As an agnostic, I think it's laughable to look at this as being coincidental and not something that's part of the system itself--HOLLYWOOD is the entity guilty of groupthink here; those pointing it out are merely stating the obvious.

Hollywood is not simply a distribution center that rubberstamps what the moviemakers do--they say Yes or No to movies depending on the message, the profitability. If anyone needs evidence of this, look at one of the biggest-grossing movies of 3004--The Passion. Where are all these conservative religious movies that are being greenlit to cash in on this? But there are always ripoffs and "homages" being made to EVERY movie that makes money--why not in this situation?

The creators of the movies have little say in what the studio approves or cuts out. And they stop proposing conservative-themed movies because they know they only get to pitch so many times before they stop getting callbacks. I speak from the experience of friends--that's how it works. If you think someone keeps proposing conservative movies to the studios gets called back as often as someone who proposes liberal-themed movies, no offense, but you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

As for Carrie, you're micro-analyzing--she's a religious wacko in the book and movie but in the book the abusive part is emphasized just as much, as an element of her overall abusive personality and hatred for her ex-husband; coming away from the movie you think "She's a religious wacko." The icons and candles etc. are the visual cue that religion is the SOURCE of her abusive behavior; in the book, it's more complex.

You may have left Footloose with that impression, but I will wager that 99% of people describing his character will NOT say "John Cleese played this noble misguided character" but "John Cleese played this rightwing Bible thumper nutcase who wants to ban DANCING! What a wacko!"

It's not groupthink to merely report on the herdlike behavior of Hollywood studios.

48 posted on 06/07/2005 6:45:36 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 (Dems, the annoying vegetarians of politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
It's actually John Lithgow not John Cleese. :-) I take a purely auteurist stance on films. Studio heads don't make movies. They don't know how frankly. The only time movies get made is when a film maker wants to make one. And like I said earlier anyone can get a movie made these days. You just have to hustle. If you're saying that there's a massive blacklist of conservative film makers and you know this from friends then that's something I honestly wouldn't have guessed. I think it's a case of conservatives not going into the business in as many numbers as are needed to redress the balance. I worked at a film school and most of the people there were on the far Left. Those are the people who are going into the film business.
49 posted on 06/07/2005 7:20:17 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Borges

True, but the percentage of people going to theaters didn't start to really fall until the style of movies started changing radically. You can see that from the fact that family oriented movies, even today, tend to do much better at the box office than 'sex' flicks.


50 posted on 06/08/2005 8:12:54 AM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson