Asymmetrical Information

I hope this, along with their support for Lieberman and the Bienart piece, helps hammer home the point that TNR shouldn't be regarded, in any sense, as a proxy for what centrist Democrats think. It hasn't been that kind of weathervane for at least a decade.

Didn’t Janet Reno while she was AG once threaten Hollywood to clean up their act or she would clean it up for them?

I kind of think ignoring Hollywood, with both wallet and voice, would be more effective, and that this will happen naturally, to some degree.

Hollywood is starting to face the same kind of competition as the MSM is from blogs like this - people will be giving away more and more entertainment product of increasingly high quality.

Small stuff, for now, like Amazon's recent group of free films - but it will only get larger.

Tipper Gore would be PERFECT as chair-person of such an effort.

And y'know what'd be rilly cool? If she could rope Danny Quayle in on the effort -- to make it look non-partisen.

Take your censor's what?

Oh, come on. Like you wouldn't want me to mention it.

I don't think this would do a bit of good. The people who really hate Hollywood are unlikely to donate or vote for most Democrats no matter what they do. This sounds like more of Beinhart's sillyness about how if the Democrats bash key parts of their constituency hard enough, conservative voters will like them. I am not buying it at all.

I do hope some Democrats pick up this and run with it... it would finally put on public display their disdain and contempt for the Constitution, all for political advantage.

Regulate? Well, a ratings system is beneficial, but the current one isn't that great. Regulation of public airwaives has an appeal, but consistency is lacking.
But funding PBS more? They've got it backwards. Slash arts funding. Enact legislation so that consumers can order only the channels they want rather than the 50 different golf, music video and ballet channels they think we want (otherwise known as corporate regulation).
That's what I want.

Totally unnecessary. I think The Long Tail and cheaper film-editing tools will simply make Hollywood more and more irrelevant.

If everyone hates Hollywood why do they spend so much on movies?

To whom do you refer, Boonton? And are the two (Hollywood and movies) synonymous?

I myself almost never get to see a movie on the big screen - between three little kids (so that babysitting doubles the cost of a night out) and a husband who deeply resents the fact that people don't want him to chat with them during movies, I tend to wait for the video (or DVD, these days), then often forget which movies intrigued me three months previously when they were in the theater. So I don't spend much money on movies at all.

As to the rest, it's perfectly possible to love movies, in the same way that one might love a good book - for entertainment - but not love the current tendency of some actors and other performers to inject themselves into the political sphere simply because their faces are known. Or because their worldview is so skewed that they start to believe that the camera focused on them during shooting, making them the center of that limited universe, is a proxy for the Eye of the World in real life.

I don't know Jane, the rightwing's setting the censorship bar pretty high:

http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=116&sid=400429

"The nation's new education secretary denounced PBS on Tuesday for spending public money on a cartoon with lesbian characters, saying many parents would not want children exposed to such lifestyles.
The not-yet-aired episode of "Postcards From Buster" shows the title character, an animated bunny named Buster, on a trip to Vermont _ a state known for recognizing same-sex civil unions. The episode features two lesbian couples, although the focus is on farm life and maple sugaring.
A PBS spokesman said late Tuesday that the nonprofit network has decided not to distribute the episode, called "Sugartime!," to its 349 stations. She said the Education Department's objections were not a factor in that decision."

And if you believe that last line, you're dumb enough to vote for W and think he'll be a moderate.

Michael: PBS is government programming. To say that the government shouldn't have control over what PBS airs is just plain silly. Ideally there should be no PBS, but as long as PBS exists the kind of "censorship" you're talking about is unavoidable.

Xavier, I'm glad that you support government suppression of dangerous and degenerate lesbian maple syrup practices.

Michael,
So when did you guys first start believing that free speech and subsidized speech are necessarily the same thing? o_O

Get off your high horse. Your censors and compadres in the religious right are the whole reason why you're people have won the presidency, house, and senate. We gave these people to you back in '64 and now you're stuck with them - and complete control of the federal government. So stop complaining.

"So when did you guys first start believing that free speech and subsidized speech are necessarily the same thing?"

Hmmm I think it was probably about the same time you guys decided that having the sec of ed denouncing a kids program because it included the words "their two moms"* was rational and appropriate, why?

*that's apparently the entire "lesbian" content of the show in question, but then republicans are establishing that mentioning that gays and lesbians exist is a faux pas, so they're sticking to the script pretty well.

Jamie writes:

I myself almost never get to see a movie on the big screen - between three little kids...and a husband who deeply resents the fact that people don't want him to chat with them during movies, I tend to wait for the video...

I, too, almost never go to the movies, because I resent Jamie's husband chatting through the movies. (No, really; having to interact with other movie-goers is the prime reason I don't go to movies.)

We went to The Lord of the Rings, and we always turn out for Bond, Star Trek, or Star Wars, but I can't remember the last movie -- besides the above-mentioned -- I wanted to see because I thought it would be good (wait, yes I can -- it was The Others, 2000). Today, most of the movies I want to see, I want to see for the purpose of mocking them (I am keen to see The Day After Tomorrow for this reason), and that, of course, should be done in the privacy of one's home.

Xavier wrote:

>Michael: PBS is government programming.
>[...]

Um, if you mean PBS programming is controlled by government funding, then you must first demonstrate the extent of that funding.

Although I don't have exact figures handy, I think it's accurate to say that no more than 25% of PBS funding comes from government sources.

So, if government provided no funding whatever to PBS, it might still exist at about 75% of current size and budget.

Then when the censorious religious wackos at the FCC moved to enforce the ever malleable indecency rule against depictions of maple syrup addicted lesbian welfare mothers on drugs or something equally silly, economic libertarians would have no good excuse for supporting the censorship.

I myself almost never get to see a movie on the big screen - between three little kids (so that babysitting doubles the cost of a night out) and a husband who deeply resents the fact that people don't want him to chat with them during movies, I tend to wait for the video (or DVD, these days), then often forget which movies intrigued me three months previously when they were in the theater. So I don't spend much money on movies at all.

Ok, yea, right. So the studios don't make any money when you choose to go to blockbuster rather than the movies or if you choose to watch movies on HBO or regular TV. I think that like fast food, it is fashionable in the moral circles to 'hate' Hollywood despite the fact that we consume its products in large quantities.

As to the rest, it's perfectly possible to love movies, in the same way that one might love a good book - for entertainment - but not love the current tendency of some actors and other performers to inject themselves into the political sphere simply because their faces are known.

This is hardly a 'current tendency'. Ever hear of Ronald Reagan? How about the McCarthy hearings? What you are really saying, IMO, is you don't like it when well known people state opinions you disagree with. Well guess what, welcome to America.

Ok, yea, right. So the studios don't make any money when you choose to go to blockbuster rather than the movies or if you choose to watch movies on HBO or regular TV.

Well of course they make money, albeit the net transaction value is probably lower (many people would both go to the theater AND rent/buy later). Also, avoiding the theater -- assuming the 'big screen' experience isn't critical to you -- allows for an extra layer of content filtration.

I think that like fast food, it is fashionable in the moral circles to 'hate' Hollywood despite the fact that we consume its products in large quantities.

Hypocrisy, in other words. No doubt there is some of that at work. On the other hand, you're at risk of making the "avoid hammers because they can be used to bash someone's head in" argument...

Boonton:

You've got a point - actors have ever been egotistical. As with many people, I guess I've made the error of speaking as if Life Begins with the day I was born - and that what's a hot button now never was in the past. But it still seems to me that actors take a more active role now in the political sphere than they did, say, in the '40s and '50s - am I wrong? Was there a Sarandon or a Fonda (other than Henry, who I don't recall hearing was an activist - I could easily be wrong since I'm, self-confessed, not well informed in this area) back then?

Point is, Hollywood serves a purpose - and that purpose is generally NOT to enlighten, but to entertain (whatever they tell themselves, or else they wouldn't spend so much money on production and marketing). Like fast food. Nobody reasonably claims it's either haute nor nutritious, but the French fries are tasty! When fast food restaurants deign to instruct me on nutrition or haute cuisine, I am - correctly - scornful.

BTW, truly, the studios ain't making much on me. I did go see "The Incredibles." Besides that, the vids in power rotation around here are "Care Bears," "Scooby Doo and the Loch Ness Monster," and "Rescue Heroes: Storm of the Century." That's why I post so friggin' much.

Point is, Hollywood serves a purpose - and that purpose is generally NOT to enlighten, but to entertain (whatever they tell themselves, or else they wouldn't spend so much money on production and marketing).

"Wait a minute, this movie is enlightening as well as entertaining!"

"Sorry sir!"

"Can't be both, take out 30% of the enlightenment so we can get it past the ratings board!!!"

I think drama is often entertaining but it is also enlightening...at least when its good. Professionals in Hollywood, like Clint Eastwood, know this and are properly proud of their craft. They aren't just clowns who doing Birthday gigs for 6 yr olds..after all.

As for being activist; it is an old accusation. There's a host of movies that made provacative political/social points (how about interracial marriage in Look Whose Coming to Dinner). In McCarthy's time writers (intersting how the focus then was on writers...not actors) were often accused of being too 'pro-labor' in some of their movies.

As for examples of activists; Reagan comes to mind immediately. John Wayne was well known to be right wing but I'm not sure he ever went so far as to endorse a politican or political party. I'm sure there were many more but neither of know them off hand because we don't know our history that well and when we were younger we didn't care about politics and could just enjoy the actors for what they did. You tend to notice people who have opinions that annoy you...how many times have I read callers on talk radio declare that they will never see a Susan Surandon movie or Jane Fonda because of their politics.

Boonton:

I'm losing track of the point of this thread. Wasn't it that some on the left are now talking about distancing themselves from the Hollywood that the flyover states find objectionable? As such, wasn't it a de-facto confirmation that Hollywood (a) isn't actually representative of the Everyday American, and (b) acted as if the Everyday American ought to pay it a lot of attention in last year's campaign?

I'm sometimes enlightened by movies. And, as with literature, the best writing and the best acting can engender a transcendant experience in the partaker, sometimes unexpectedly. But big-studio movies - surely we can agree that the profit motive trumps the Transcendancy of Art?? That writers and actors and directors and all those guys, while taking their craft seriously and doing their best to make every piece of their performance Art, nevertheless realize that it's butts in the seats that will secure financing for their next project?

Say what you will, Cameron Diaz knew diddly about the consequences of re-electing Bush. Yet for some reason, she seemed to think that she did, and that she ought to comment on national TV about them. Sarandon and Robbins, in contrast, are at least moderately well informed in their position, though I vehemently disagree with it; Diaz was just jawing.

Indeed, ill informed or dumb people are free to have vocal political opinions. I'll take Cameron Diaz if you take Bill O'Reilly.

Say what you will, Cameron Diaz knew diddly about the consequences of re-electing Bush.

And Kid Rock, Curt Schilling, and Dale Earnhart, Jr. did?

Jamie: Hollywood isn't actually representative of the Everyday American

Neither is Washington D.C., for that matter. Not like anybody here cares about reforms that would actually address that.

Ewwww, I don't want Bill O'Reilly! Anyway, he claims to be an independent, don't he?

I heard at least some of Kid Rock's comments; he began by saying, in effect, "I'm just a singer; you want ME running this country? I sure don't," which is exactly the humility I'd like to see from Diaz: acknowledge what you ARE good at, but don't assume your expertise bleeds over into other, and at least as serious (giving LOTS of benefit of doubt here), pursuits. I can't comment on Schilling or Earnhart. Um. Who is Schilling, anyway? And while probably most people know who Earnhart is, roughly, most will also probably never see an interview with him. But EVERYone knows Cameron Diaz, and what she and other bigtime celebs say is so often reported as news for some reason - which is what makes her tossed-out comment on voting the wrong way's leading to legalized rape so dangerous.

For the record, I also think Clinton should've steered clear of public saxophone performances, on the same general principle: play to your strengths, for heaven's sake.

Actually hand an iBook with wireless capabilities and a DV camera to a young person and let them make movies. The quality of their prodction, often to brief in length, suggests the possibilities of outstanding futre productions by the much abused masses. After all isn't a good deal of prOn produced on the shortest of short budgets with a handheld DV camera. Hollywood, however, will stew in its own juices for many years to come. There are too many of them enfranchised with great wealth. But their voice will become more shrill as they become irrelevant.

SteveoBrien:

Or give those tools to to a techie older person, sir! Let's not be ageist. My dad is the quintessential Early Adopter. Unfortunately he's not especially talented at video production, but if he were, he'd be able to turn out a d--n good movie, because he's got ALL the toys.

Just "to." Not "to to." Sorry!

Comments are Closed.