Ya think????? LOL!
((South Park episode: 'Smug Alert' comes to mind))
Antonio Gramscii. He’s the man. Look it up.
Abstract: Gramscii was an Italian communist who suggested that the strength of Western culture prevented the transformation of society from capitalist to socialist. His solution was elegant. Those who were socialist should occupy positions of influence in communications, education, religion, and other elements of culture in society, and slowly, over time, socialism would replace capitalism without the need for revolution or sudden change. He called the process “the long march through the institutions.”
That was 70 years ago. If you think Hollywood is singularly focused on leftist ideology, try living in the American school system or the university-colleges throughout the United States. Ditto the media, although the power of conservative talk radio still bedevils the leftists. Think about the changes in the Protestant churches during the past half century.
Gramscii isn’t a wild conspirator. He offers a strategy. He wrote about it. His writings are part of many college classroom curriculla, and they’re available on the Internet.
Interestingly, Gramscii didn’t predict Islamic thinkers would adopt his methods to institute Sharia law and subvert non-Islamic cultures. Gramscii also didn’t predict that some of us are taking our own long march through leftist institutions, acting like termites in the foundation of their thinking in the media and schools. For instance, by the time students get through my senior English class, they’ve been exposed to Solzhenitsyn and confronted with the horrors of Mao and Pol Pot, and hopefully they’re inoculated against whatever leftist propoganda they’ll face in college or university.
And about the topic - if no one is seeing these leftwing antiwar films, does it matter? Propoganda only works with exposure to the viewer. In the meantime, how many people have purchased “Veggie Tales” and seen the few G-rated films being produced? The theater was filled to the brim when I took my son to see “Prince Caspian.” Gramscii and his buddies follow thinking which sounds good from the inside of a library; the real world is a far more complicated place.
I am proud to say that except for taking my five year old daughter to a few Disney movies the past three years, I have NOT been to an “adult” movie in more then seven years as I do all I can to NOT voluntarily support hollywood...
When is the last time you heard Pelosi or Reid complaining about a Hollywood (puke)star making too much money on a picture? Personally I don’t care what they get, if they can get that much money fine and dandy, but if oil companies make too much money than so do movie(puke)stars. 16 million to stand up and say what someone else has written and most of the actors today wouldn’t make a pimple on the a** of the greats of the past or even some of the mediocre actors and actresses of days gone by.
The only way Hollywood will make a movie supportive of the military or America is if it’s about a black, lesbian, vegan, non-smoking female soldier who single-handedly saves the world from global warming while driving a Prius.
Criterion is going to release Costa-Gavras' MISSING later this year. My dad hated anything by Costa-Gavras because of his left-wing bent, but MISSING is a very moving story about two completely opposite types--Sissy Spacek and Jack Lemmon--coming together over a family tragedy.
There is alot going on in the film about life, and near the end a U.S. official speaks a devastating line about the reality of sticking your nose into dangerous places. I can live with a film that includes the whole drama of life instead of a narrow, ridiculous vision of it.
Three Days of The Condor, which I saw not too long ago, also has a seemingly leftist, anti-government bent that is tempered by the cold words of assasin Max von Sydow and a truthful bombshell by Cliff Robertson's CIA creep.
These two films are miles above the narrow-minded visions we're getting of late.
Yet nobody on the right has tried the obvious. For even a tiny budget of under $1M, they could go to Iraq with war veterans as no-name actors, hire Iraqis as extras, and make a movie that might bring in over $100M, even direct to DVD.
For plot, use the war stories of the veterans—a thousand times more stories than you could possibly use, and at very low cost. And by being honest about the professionalism of US soldiers, the military would gladly give full support for the production, as well as supply vast amounts of stock footage.
Probably the biggest expense would be in the makeup involved in showing al-Qaeda crimes against Iraqis. The Iraqis would be more than glad to portray the hated al-Qaeda as the beasts they are. No need to show *any* sympathy for al-Qaeda at all.
And there would be no problem in translating the suffering the Iraqis endured at the hands of the villains. Their memories are very fresh of having family members slaughtered, and this movie would be a memorial to their loved ones, and show the depth of their sadness and anger.
It would be acting, but it isn’t acting. No actor could fake that.
Ironically, while it would be an American war movie, the Americans would pale against the Iraqis themselves, expressing what they endured, and their hopes for the future.
No bones about it, as well. The would be a pro-America, pro-military, pro-Iraq war, and pro-democratic Iraqi movie. And while Hollywood would bitterly shun it, they would have no hand in it.
And no amount of leftist hate and vitriol would stop people from seeing it, either.
If the Fairness Doctrine gets pushed in talk radio, can we force hollywood to also be fair to both sides of an issue?
Seems to only be “fair”
Not exactly Hollywood, but has anyone seen “Generation Kill” on HBO?
I watched the first installment last weekend.
If you have cable and tons of movie channels and read the descriptions, most have ridiculously liberal tones, evil corporations, gays, gays, gays, more movies about gays, more evil corporations, anti war, anti war, etc.
I always wonder WHO are the idiots who bought these pitches, it seems like you could sell ANYTHING to hollywood and get it produced, as long as it strictly adheres to hard left storylines.
Antonio Gramsci is seen by many as one of the most important Marxist thinkers of the twentieth century, in particular as a key thinker in the development of Western Marxism.
Hegemony was a concept previously used by Marxists such as Lenin to indicate the political leadership of the working-class in a democratic revolution, but developed by Gramsci into an acute analysis to explain why the ‘inevitable’ socialist revolution predicted by orthodox Marxism had not occurred by the early 20th century. Capitalism, it seemed, was even more entrenched than ever. Capitalism, Gramsci suggested, maintained control not just through violence and political and economic coercion, but also ideologically, through a hegemonic culture in which the values of the bourgeoisie became the ‘common sense’ values of all. Thus a consensus culture developed in which people in the working-class identified their own good with the good of the bourgeoisie, and helped to maintain the status quo rather than revolting.
The working class needed to develop a culture of its own, which would overthrow the notion that bourgeois values represented ‘natural’ or ‘normal’ values for society, and would attract the oppressed and intellectual classes to the cause of the proletariat. Lenin held that culture was ‘ancillary’ to political objectives but for Gramsci it was fundamental to the attainment of power that cultural hegemony was first achieved.
In Gramscis view, any class that wishes to dominate in modern conditions has to move beyond its own narrow economic-corporate interests, to exert intellectual and moral leadership, and to make alliances and compromises with a variety of forces.
the bourgeoisie was regarded as hegemonic within capitalist society by Gramsci, who believed their power depended on the permeation by bourgeois values of all organs of society.