Director Haynes to Use GOP-Bashing ‘What’s the Matter with Kansas?’ as Template for Conservative Film
by HollywoodlandTodd Haynes wants to make a fair and balanced feature on the conservatism found in Flyover Country. But Haynes can’t hide his biases even while describing the upcoming project to a sympathetic reporter.
The director, best known for the 2002 film “Far from Heaven” which excoriated ’50s Middle America as profoundly racist and homophobic, is planning a project that “will take an in-depth look at the values and opinions of Middle America, and examine them within the context of our current political climate.”
“It’s sort of about the great middle of this country and their sort of suspicions about government,” he revealed. “And how that keeps clicking into conservative politics and the way the right makes use of those uncertainties. There’s interesting reasons why people feel the way they do, outside of the coasts and outside of the clear liberal orthodoxy, and that interests me. It’s been too effective, that allegiance, for too many years, and I’m curious about it. So we’re kind of getting inside that process….
…Haynes said that their film would not only be dramatic, but attempt to offer as complete and unbiased a portrait of both of those groups as possible, in an effort to shine a light on a phenomenon that will hopefully prove enlightening to everyone. “It’s serious,” he said. “We want it to be something that people respect who wouldn’t necessarily be my audience, my target audience, or the audiences that I’ve accumulated in the past, because I really am looking at a different swath of the population and a different constituency….
… He indicated that Joe Winston’s documentary, “What’s The Matter With Kansas,” which was based on Thomas Frank’s book, is serving as a template for the thoughtful, incisive, but respectful tone he and Raymond are attempting to capture…
Check out the full Indiewire article about Haynes’ new project.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
102 Comments
they really tried to push Frank's book when it came out.
Called it a 'populist' take on the subject. The central thesis is WHY would middle America vote against it's best interests? Meaning, of course, progressive statist policies. His theme was that people are SO horribly misinformed
that they continuously vote conservative out of sheer stupidity.
The book is a farce.
So, of course a movie should use it's false assumptions as ground zero for a narrative. Thankfully, only 188 people will ever see THIS thing, too…
I will grant you that Todd Haynes is no conservative stalwart, but to say that "Far From Heaven" "excoriated ’50s Middle America as profoundly racist and homophobic" is to profoundly mischaracterize what was a really well-done movie. The 1950s were not a good time to be in an inter-racial relationship. It's not a baseless allegation of racism to point that out. The 1950s were not a time for open same-sex relationships. Not a baseless allegation of homophobia to mention that. These are historical facts, not an excoriation. The movie was a salute to 1950s movie romances, where one form of taboo relationship was symbolic of a more deeply taboo relationship, such as an inter-racial or same-sex romance. 1950s movies were full of those kind of subtleties, and Haynes played off those undercurrents quite nicely in that movie.
Oh, my gosh – I can't WAIT to be lectured to by one of the Elite!
Populisum is a farce….
What's the matter with Kansas? All the university libtards and hippies in Lawrence.
From Wiki:
"Haynes is openly gay"
Enough said.
He wants Middle America to become Brokeback Mountain
Far From Heaven is a Douglas Sirk homage which make it a train wreck of a movie that left me both fascinated and ill-at-ease by its artificiality and superficiality.
This guy is tone deaf.
"Against our best interests" This is the line that really just amuses me. How is taking money out of my boss's wallet in my self interest? Does taking more of my boss's money make me more or less likely to: get a new job, keep an old job, or god forbid get a raise? Do they even think about this stuff at all before they say it? Does their brain ever engage?
"This guy is tone deaf. "
That is because he spends too much time paying attention to the bottom end….if you get my drift…. lol
"There’s interesting reasons why people feel the way they do, outside of the coasts and outside of the clear liberal orthodoxy, and that interests me."
Sounds like he's more interested in dissecting red staters than, you know, entertaining them.
And as a bonus he's admitted that we've never been his target audience.
Ugh!
Let me save him the trouble. People understand when you have contempt for their value structure and will vote accordingly, regardless of how large a social-welfare check you wave in front of them
The 1950s were not a good time to be in an inter-racial relationship.
The 2010s are not a good time to be a free thinker, individualist or value liberty. I'll be waiting with bated breath for a movie along those lines. Commentary on 1950s morals and taboos only function now as excuses for butt kicking the individual in the name of "progress".
Yeah. Never seen far from heaven, never heard of this guy either. However he is kind of sounding like Michael Moore – so I think I'll stay away from this.
After reading all these posts, I have to ask: When will Hollywood put together a movie about Middle America in which a central actor or his family build up evidence that Washington is fighting against its best interests and they start a revolution against the entrenched Washington bureaucracy? Will anyone be willing to risk this, fight against the horror that Hollywood would pit against this idea, and make a summer blockbuster?
Openly gay plus bashing Middle Americans…
**sighs**Intolerance from those who demand it…shocker…
Guess I got excited by my misunderstanding of the headline "AS TEMPLATE FOR CONSERVATIVE FILM" because I took that to mean that the film itself would be adopting a conservative viewpoint, but no, such was not to be.
What it's going to be is another Liberal dissection — read: hatchet job — of conservative values. Why do I say "hatchet job"? Just an assumption. But with regards to mid-westerners' allegience to conservatism, Haynes says, "It’s been too effective, that allegiance, for too many years, and I’m curious about it."
Haynes didn't say "It's been highly effective for many years" but rather "TOO effective for TOO many years."
And that, my friends, is his bias talking.
Agreed,.
Indeed. It's why I didn't go to KU despite living 20 minutes from campus.
And the NEXT film, just for balance, will be based on the great Jack Cashill's book, "What's the Matter With California?" (a right-back-atcha look at the Left Coast and all of its…um…successes).
So another lefty explorer puts on his pith helmet and goes on a safari into middle America searching for members of the elusive stone age right-wing tribe, bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles, to try and understand and translate for the civilized folk back home what these mental pygmies are all about. I know how this plays out. There will be one or two scenes that actually show the conservatives in a positive light, the rest of the movie will all be negative, put to a sinister musical soundtrack and that will be the "balance". Been there, done that. No thanks.
I second this plan.
Me too dumb to think what peoples in NY and LA say I should be thinkin'.
Less than stellar three-point shooting.
Here's a few facts that won't be in the movie.
Cost-of-Living Adjusted Median Household Income i.e, the best measure of a state's affluence.
Kansas 50,177 ranked #13
Nebraska 49,697 #16
california 46,418 #38, 1 place behind Alabama
new york 43,552 #42
25 years from now, the gap will be much larger as mexifornia and old york reap the results of their cool, sophisticated, and hip economic policies.
J.C. Grant's article titled "Richest and poorest States in the United States" is very informative.
Exactly.
They self reveal without even intending to.
Libturds have to go on safari to try and understand conservatives, meanwhile we know we know every little tick and twitch about them. And how could we not? The media/entertainment complex inundates this country with Liberalism 24/7 without end.
Though we know this project isn't an honest effort to understand, but to portray.
That's cool. And while we are at it, how about a great Middle-America director going to the uber liberal coasts to find out why outmoded uber liberal orthodoxy 'has been too effective, that allegiance, for too many years.' After all, the great liberal unwashed from the coasts control most of the Senate and the Presidency and much of our culture.
I’m curious about that.
I didn't even have to research that one little tidbit to know that one! Hehehehe!
Stupid Americans! Imagine the nerve of these people who refuse to bow down to the Almighty Progressive! Whatever are they thinking (sarc off)
Main Street will ALWAYS be better than Wall Street
That's a crappy looking shirt.
It will be a failure.
Folks are tired of this pathetic bias, and only the airheads in la la hollywoodland think most people agree with this type of thinking.
Good thing we know better.
He wants to study us like we're some unknown amazonian tribe. The disconnect for libs is so great that they cannot fathom why someone would believe differently than they — or maybe it's pure narcissism…they are so informed and intelligent that others who believe differently must simply be ignorant and uneducated. That's what he's doing, isn't it? He's trying to answere the lib question as to why we are all so ignorant and uneducated.
What a jagoff.
Hey, isn't he the guy who did that Karen Carpenter movie using
Barbie dolls instead of actors?
1950s morals and taboos were much better than what we have now.
Someone needs to tell this guy that conservatism is not a phenomenon… it's an idea, it's a set of principles.
These folks somehow think that socialism and liberalism are not a phenomenon, but some kind of natural state of being. Maybe they are… who knows, they probably are. If you are under the age of adulthood.
Your definition of homophobia doesn't fit my perceptions of homosexuality. Another deceptive liberal technique of starting with a false premise to support an idealogy. Don't presume to have settled an issue based on your conscience and consider it established fact. More importantly, conservatives shouldn't allow you or your ilk to get away with it.
One of many things that bothered me about "What's the matter with Kansas?"is the whole voting against my interests line that has become a standard liberal talking point. The assumption that leftists know what is in my interests better than me is incredibly patronizing, not to mention laughable but to imagine that they are even interested in what is in my best interesting absolutely galling. The left hates self-employed independent, white males like me and would send us all off to camp if they could get away with it. What they mean is I refuse to vote what is in their best interests. If Haynes really wanted to make an interesting movie he would look into why leftists are so delusional about the world around them.
re: "The 2010s are not a good time to be a free thinker, individualist or value liberty."
Those qualities are the very basis of Liberal thinking.
liberal adj. [Fr: liber,free] free by birth; refined; befitting a freeman or gentleman; bestowing with a free hand; open-hearted; bountiful; generous; enlarged; catholic; not narrow or bigoted; unselfish; not mean or miserly; open; candid; general; extensive; ample; large; profuse; denoting or evincing the sprit of freedom in political or religious philosophy; friendly to great freedom in the forms of government;- n. one that advocates greater freedom of thought or action in political or religious action.
Only in your fevered little minds. Two things define modern liberalism: 1. A penchant for coalescing around changing things which aren't right about ten minutes before everyone else. 2. Smugly and delusionally hanging that over other people's heads in perpetuity while pursuing all manner of stupid, damaging, irrational and useless overkill.
Regarding what is "taboo," I will let G.K. Chesterton do my replying for me:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.
Sad, but probably true.
The undeniable stupidity, bigotry and ignorance the editors and readers of this site continue to vomit out never ceases to amaze me. Hey editors of BigHollywood – get a map. Far from Heaven takes place in CT. Last I checked, that's not in middle America. It's like you guys get dumber every friggin' day.
As for most of the comments, I have never seen so much unAmerican filth in one place. Since you clearly hate so many Americans (liberals, moderates, Mexican-Americans, gay people, black people, poor people, Latinos, 85% of Jews, Europeans – I mean, is there anyone you guys don't hate) who vote for Democrats, you all should just leave. Iran seems to fit your philosophical outlook. According to their leader, there's no gay people there. I'm sure y'all will fit right in. Do America a favor and gtfo. We no longer need or want you here. All you do is weaken our nation.
Or stick around and watch America reaffirm itself by voting for Obama again. The choice is yours, but you should know you're all a bunch of disgraces to this great nation and your time is done.
A Real American
P.S. – Reagan was a bigot, a moron and a mediocre president.
Yeah, if you're an unamerican bigot.
Actually, Lawrence is the only part of Kansas that doesn't suck. The rest of the state is stuck in 1958.
You do realize that without NY and CA, the GDP of the United States would be about 20-25% smaller. Take Kansas and Nebraska away though, the country wouldn't even notice.
My ilk is pretty d**n conservative. Have you even seen "Far From Heaven"? The wife discovers her husband is having an affair with another man. In the 1950s. It's not celebrated in the movie at all. She has a sense of shame. The author of the piece calls it "excoriating" 1950s America for being racist and homophobic. I call it "consistent with that era."
A common misconception about Hollywood is that everyone there is liberal. Among cast and crew members, maybe. But the people who hold the real power in Hollywood tend to be moderate democrats along with a few libertarians and even some Conservatives, at least the ones I've met. Most producers and studio heads – democrats – but not all that liberal. John Nolte, of course, doesn't think so. He thinks he has no career because of all the liberals in Hollywood. The truth is that his only movie sucked and he lacks talent.
Umm, you are aware that each state gets two Senators, right? How are they all from the east and west coasts then? Sorry, mathematically impossible. Also, conservative culture sucks.
I assume you're referring to the Main Street at the Disney parks, in which case, you are correct.
Yes. it started his career.
Yes, a dumb idea and a stupid set of principles.
Sirk is only superficial if you're blind or dumb.
Really?! I'm an individualist who values liberty and loves thinking. To these eyes, it's a great time for all of these things.
Utter horsedung.
Are you on crack or something? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Homophobia means fear of homosexuals or homosexuality, (which often leads to bigotry against homosexuals). What your perception of homosexuality is totally irrelevant. It would be like saying, "Your definition of racism against black people doesn't fit my perception of black people." See, makes no sense.
You do know the definition of elite is "considered to be the best in a particular society"? In other words, qualified. Would you prefer to be lectured by a moron?
Unamerican bigot.
Ibid.
Your value structure sucks and is unamerican.
So not Michael Moore, but have fun reveling in your absurd ignorance.
That sounds like the most boring movie ever.
It's not bias. Bias means an unfair prejudice against a certain group. There's nothing unfair about examining why Kansas sucks. Also, learn some English.
Let's not get too snarky against The Left.
You may think Socialism is pretty dumb and that liberalism is a stupid set of principles, but have a little better attitude to those folks.
Yeah, it's only the largest economy in the entire United States. Total failure, which is why so many people live and move there (doesn't Breitbart live there, he grew up pretty close to me). Moron.
Agreed.
That's a crappy looking dog.
Most movies suck and they get made, so that wasn't the reason.
You do realize Orwell was a Democratic Socialist (was a bit of anarchist before that).
I think you just revealed yours
Thanks for playing! You'll get a selection of gifts to carry home as you leave.
Is that the best you can do, trot out bigot? You do realize that that word has been so overused that it has absolutely no sting anymore don't you? All is does is show just how empty you are, just how lacking in the ability to think and defend your twisted, sick ideology.
And yeah, things were better then. At least idiots like you just showed their true colors in their party cell meetings. I say bring back blacklisting and treason trials.
Oh yes, it was because he's conservative. Off the top of my head, I personally know six republicans who have successful careers in film and television (and yes, everyone knows they are GOP). How is this possible if everyone in hollywood is liberal or a marxist or a communist? Think of it this way. Kansas is a red state, right. But in reality, it's purple – Obama got 41% of the vote in 2008…in Kansas. Isn't it possible there are conservatives working openly in Hollywood?
By the way, if Jesus came back, he'd be voting Democrat next year.
"Learn some English."
You got it, pal, and thanks for the lesson. Nothing I love more than getting writing tips from a prose stylist such as yourself. I'm guessing Jthompsen is just a cover and you're really Tom Wolfe, right? Thought so.
But I suppose my favorite part of your (utterly delightful) reply was the line "There's nothing unfair about examining why Kansas sucks."
Yup. Nothing unfair at all. In fact, that unbiased phrase "Why Kansas Sucks," ought to serve as the title of Haynes' film.
Know anyone on medicare or social security dumbass? Bet you do. Those are socialist programs. I know conservatives are unaware of this, but it's true.
As an aside – why are all the Liberals I meet on this site so snide? it isn't like they are more intelligent than I am – although obviously they think so. I swear the names above the comments are interchangeable – every one of them sounds the same. Heck it may be the same person for all I know. …Makes me wonder if they are overcompensating for something, heh.
Granted I don't know if they are all liberal, but they sure sound like it. I post this here because I'm "reveling in my ignorance." Ah well at least I enjoy life, eh?
What are their jobs? Accountants? It's common knowledge Liberals can't do numbers.
I said that 1950s were a bad time for inter-racial relationships and your response is that the 1950s were superior? I will grant you that so much of Eisenhower-era morality is superior to what we have today, but the public reaction to inter-racial relationships was most definitely NOT one of them. Up through the 1960s, until the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, an appropriately named case if there ever was one, there were laws on the books in many states outlawing miscegenation! I think we can all agree that such government regulation of intimate relationships is an example of Big Government at its absolute worst. "Far From Heaven" points the problems of an inter-racial coupling in that area. Yet "Hollywoodland" treats this sensitive and well-done movie as if it were "American Beauty: The First Generation."
It's actually a good movie, with Dennis Quaid, Julianne Moore, and the guy from the Allstate Insurance commercials. It's an homage to 1950s melodramas and, despite what "Hollywoodland" says, it's not at all political. It's 180 degrees from what propagandist Michael Moore does. Boycott it if you want because of the guy's politics — free speech free country and all that — I'll never go to a Matt Damon movie because of his politics — but don't boycott it because you think it's Michael Moore style left-wing political haranguing. It's far from that.
Well I'm just going by what I see above – mainly because MM always says he's out to tell the truth but he never does.
I do watch movies and read books and such from people I don't agree with – it doesn't bother me unless it is really blatant. (*cough* cars 2 *cough*) so I might give the first movie a shot. However – I don't think I'll want to watch the film that is being discussed in the main article.
The "What's the Matter with Kansas" movie, if it is at all as described, sounds like it'll be either boring or obnoxious. Count me out. But I really liked "Far From Heaven" and I think it deserves a place in most folks Netflix queue.
And the Barbie dolls showed a greater range of emotion than three-quarters of the actors in Hollywood. (The Karen Carpenter Story was an awesome movie. I thought it was going to be a joke, but it's a surprisingly deep and very sensitive story about an incredibly gifted performer who died WAY too young.)
Racism isn't predicated on fear of race. Homophobia isn't predicated on hate of homosexuals. To equivocate the two is precisely my point. Please keep you personal attacks to yourself.
The uber liberals not the coast own the senate.
It's beyond true, you're just too clueless to see the obvious.
I think you've used up your quota of impotent insults. Best go silent for another 24-26 weeks before coming out again. Ciao!
I think you've used up your quota of impotent insults. Best go silent for another 24-26 weeks before coming out again. Ciao!
In this case it's the "those who THINK they are elite and yet aren't" definition of elite so we're already being lectured by a moron.
More than one since you decided to grace the comments with your textual diarrhea.
The undeniable stupidity, bigotry and ignorance the editors and readers of this site continue to vomit out never ceases to amaze me.
It spewed, seething with ignorant bigotry towards the people that disagreed with it's oh-so-enlightened worldview.
The one full of hatred is yourself, fool. Now run along and vanish for six more months before spewing again.
Do you realize that your comment is completely beside the point?.
The purpose of good economic policy is to create greater affluence, not giant poverty.
Congrats! You managed to show what a smacked a$$ you are with a 1 word reply.
It's not that he's gay, it's that he's got gay on the brain.
The first time I heard of this guy was when I saw "I'm Not There." A movie I enjoyed enough to buy. I especially liked his spiel about the sound track on the bonus disc. But he seems to think that what made Bob Dylan truly great, was he went gay, or maybe bi, or maybe changed his look to somehow show support someway of the gay cause in '66 or '67. Or something. The man has one lens, and one lens only, by which he looks at the world; the gay lens. I thought it just meant, Bob should have taken a break, and gotten a hair cut. Most gays seem to think only gays have problems in this world. This guy thinks Bob Dylan was sending secret messages, the way Charlie Manson thought the Beatles were sending him secret messages. He's got gay on the brain.
Correction:
Kansas 54,850
Nebraska 54,209
I mistakenly used the unadjusted income numbers for the 2 Mid-America states.
Kansas's Real Median Household Income is about $8,432 higher than california.
Not exactly. It's a paraphrase from a Will Rogers quote "Main Street is bigger than Wall Street." My guess is that at the time Mr. Rogers uttered that, he was trying to re-assure a troubled nation that was going through the ravages of the Great Depression, to give some hope that no matter what happened, immediate family and local community had greater value.
And yes, I agree, Disney's Main Streets (at WDW or Disneyland in CA) ARE more fun – but you STILL experience quite a bit of capitalism in the Disney stores on those Main Streets.
No he wouldn't. Jesus isn't a victim. Only victims vote Democrat.
No, liberal culture sucks. That's why nobody goes to their movies, and that's why nobody wants to pay for their crappy music anymore. It isn't worth the money.
It's only a matter of time before liberal culture finally flushed away.
I am fully aware that these programs are socialist, and I am also fully aware that they should have never been brought into existence in the first place. These programs are the reason why our debt is greater than our GDP.
Sad thing is, even the conservatives who are on these hideous programs bitterly cling to it because they've "paid" into it their whole working lives. Well I say to them, too bad. You're a leech on this country. We cannot afford these programs anymore. Hell, we couldn't afford them when they were started!
I deeply resent anyone on Medicare or Social Security. They are a huge part of the problem.
I can say this because I am only 29 years old, and am not on either program (thank God).
You must own the same shirt.
You must be logged in to post a comment.