Hollywood Villains: Leftist Agenda Trumps Audience Appeal
by John NolteYesterday, our own Chris Yogerst weighed in on Greg Gutfeld’s criticism of Hollywood — specifically Greg’s criticism of “G.I. Joe,” Stallone’s new Rambo film and “Inglourious Basterds” — for choosing politically correct villains over the real ones we face today. Chris is correct that turning Nazis into Jihadists is not something a filmmaker like Quentin Tarantino would do. If he has any, Tarantino’s politics have remained hidden in his work. Up on that screen the only thing he advocates for is overlooked 70’s B-movies and audacious entertainment. However, that doesn’t make the director’s decision to use Nazis any less politically correct or Hollywood’s moral cowardice in this area any more defensible.
Where my colleague Chris and I most disagree is with the assertion that Hollywood chooses “politically correct” or “safe” villains because Hollywood is all about the money and therefore wants to appeal to audiences who care what the villain looks like:
The film industry, like any other business, generally wants to appeal to the largest audience possible. Picking “safe” enemies is one way to do that.
Two of the most profitable films released this past year were “Gran Torino,” where our hero confronts black and Asian street gangs, and “Taken,” where the henchmen are Muslims and the arch-villain Middle Eastern.
With a $33 million production budget, “Torino” made nearly $270 million worldwide. On a budget of just $25 million, “Taken” made an astonishing $145 million domestically and another $79 million overseas. And before you give Hollywood credit for producing two films with politically-incorrect villains, keep in mind that both are notable exceptions; that only a Clint Eastwood could’ve made “Torino,” and “Taken” was produced in France, of all places.
To be clear, my point isn’t that international moviegoers flock to see politically-incorrect villains. My point is that is that audiences don’t care what the villain looks like and that Hollywood’s being dishonest when they say different.
Like the mainstream media, Hollywood’s cry of being money-driven is a lie to cover an increasingly obvious Leftist political agenda. If Hollywood really is all about making money by “appealing to the largest audience,” why no follow up to one of the most profitable films of all time, “The Passion of the Christ?” Why the three-year run of A-listers starring in box-office embarrassments with the most politically correct villain of them all: Americans in the Middle East? Define these films any way you want, I define them as loss-leaders to put Democrats in office.
Money-driven industries don’t keep making Edsels and ignore the Mustang.
Filmmakers and producers with access to Box Office Mojo know that whether politically “correct” or “incorrect,” who the villain is has nothing to do with box office. “Torino” and “Taken” were monster hits because they’re both extremely satisfying films. If there’s a single quality that made them successful that bucks the current Leftist Hollywood agenda, it’s their lack of moral equivalence. Both are straightforward good versus evil stories with a protagonist willing to sacrifice everything for something bigger than himself.
Because the human condition knows no boundaries, it’s old-fashioned heroism international audiences crave, not “safe, politically correct” villains.
“Basterds” only proves this point. “Politically correct, safe” Nazis are not what’s drawing audiences but rather the vicarious pleasure of watching something Hollywood doesn’t give us enough of: the delicious spectacle of evil receiving a reckoning at the hands of American good guys.
Both “G.I. Joe” and “Superman Returns” are all-kinds of politically correct. Neither, however, is likely to break even for years to come. “Spider-Man,” “Iron Man,” “The Dark Knight” and “300″ are a diverse mix of villains but pretty straight-forward in the good versus evil department … and all are monster hits.
Here are two other major areas of disagreement:
With the current economy, filmmakers don’t want to risk losing any potential audience. Even when ticket sales are up, filmmakers may not want to pick sides on an issue.
The decisions surrounding “G.I. Joe” and “Basterds” and so many politically correct others had nothing to do with the economy. They were in the works long before the recession hit. But this idea that directors keep their politics ambiguous and “not pick sides on an issue” disregards a never-ending avalanche of anti-Iraq, anti-Bush, pro-Leftist films that never stop flopping.
Hollywood doesn’t always like a clear line between good and evil, so in order to lock a distributor, a director might keep his or her politics ambiguous (especially if those politics are right of center).
On the left, I would say this is the exact opposite of what’s happening. Over the past ten years directors have become less and less politically ambiguous, and I would argue, increasingly strident with their on-screen agendas. This is why the adult drama is all but dead today. The agenda turns off a mainstream audience tired of paying ten bucks to be insulted and in turn no longer trusts Hollywood with anything other than tentpoles. Liberal audiences stay away because political stridency makes for bad filmmaking.
On the right, sympathies hidden and made ambiguous in fantasy films like “300″ and “The Dark Knight” have nothing to do with anything other than an intolerant film and media industry poised to pounce. The personal attacks leveled against a pre-drunk driving Mel Gibson before anyone had seen “The Passion,” and David Zucker and Jon Voight make clear that there’s a heavy price to pay for political apostates.
It comes down to this Gutfeld quote from the Yogerst piece:
“It is distasteful to consider a battle between good and evil if it’s happening now, because then you have to choose sides.”
For my money, mainstream Hollywood has chosen sides, and not ours. And that choice has nothing to do wanting to “appeal to the broadest audience possible.”
It’s not the economy stupid, it’s the agenda.







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
157 Comments
To be clear, my point isn’t that international moviegoers flock to see politically-incorrect villains. My point is that is that audiences don’t care what the villain looks like and that Hollywood’s being dishonest when they say different.
I absolutely agree. As a Russian immigrant I’m tired of seeing “the other Nazis”, eastern Europeans, portrayed as the villains. Last I checked but it wasn’t eastern Europeans that flew two airliners into the Twin Towers, flew an airliner into the Pentagon, assassinated Bobby Kennedy, assassinated the Israeli Olympic team in Munich, shot down Pan Am 103, blew up the train station in Madrid, blew up US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, etc. All of these crimes were committed by muslims. Liberal idiots [redundancy] in Hollywood can lie to themselves about who the enemy is but those abroad already know the enemy and it’s not whites in Europe, it’s the ones holding a Koran in one hand and a Kalashnikov in the other.
Excellent observations. Just curious, though: what would the follow-up to "Passion of the Christ" be?
The Acts of the Apostles. Just as powerful.
Good and evil seem to be concepts either missing in hollywood or completely alien to them now.
This is true. A bio-pic on Paul would be pretty thrilling.
I also agree that, for the most part, audiences don't care about who the "bad guy" is as long as the bad guy gets his comeuppance. Even when right-leaning or American characters are "bad guys," like for example in the "Bourne" movies, they aren't really "bad" (other than the token old, white guy). The moral ambiguity is what turns people off more than what costume an actor is wearing.
I think the 2nd Bourne film made a mistake by making Brain Cox's character evil.
Oh definitely. That was so left-field. I don't even like watching the sequels anymore.
That's what moral equivalency does for you.
Damn the torpedos then, let's go broke for Obama ???
Yeah, for about ten minutes. Then what ?
[...] pulpit and Cone of Shame Award: MSNB-see-only-what-we-want-you-to-see John Nolte, Big Hollywood: Hollywood: Leftist Agenda Trumps Audience Appeal Examiner.com: Anti-ObamaCare ad that ABC and NBC refused to Air Traction Control: Letter to the [...]
[...] CBS Posts Soldier Party Pictures– Wants You to Feel Outraged John Nolte, Big Hollywood: Hollywood: Leftist Agenda Trumps Audience Appeal At War, Notes from the Front Lines, NY Times: Cemetery Games Tim Slagle, Big Hollywood: Cindy [...]
A bio-pic on Paul would be pretty thrilling? Acts of the Apostles? I'm not sure how to respond to that. Maybe you two are being funny. Those events may have been historically significant, but it does not mean they become the next set of Bourne films, or even slightly interesting to the average person, or even a Christian like me.
Sorry, Passion was unique in part, rightly or wrongly, due to the very singular imporant and unjust event of the cruxifiction of Christ. I don't think a follow-up movie to Passion is necessary or even slightly interesting. They can make plenty of good conservative or Christian themed movies, if even by stealth/accident like Shawshank Redemption.
[...] Ten Top Reasons I’m Happy About The Glenn Beck Boycott John Nolte, Big Hollywood: Hollywood: Leftist Agenda Trumps Audience Appeal The Elephant’s Trumpet: The Fire-Fight for Freedom of Speech Watcher of Weasels: Democrat [...]
Have you ever read the life of Paul? He was shipwrecked, imprisoned, tortured, had to be sneaked in and out of cities because he had a price on his head, and that was just after his conversion. Before he made a living out of busting Christian groups and throwing kids in prison. In the hands of a good storyteller, yes, it would be an excellent film.
They are like spoiled children, they want what they want, and no rules will ever be allowed to get in the way. Good & evil, right & wrong, etc. are concepts that would make them grow up. That is why they have banished these concepts.
“It is distasteful to consider a battle between good and evil if it’s happening now, because then you have to choose sides.”
Maybe.
Or most probably it seems that way and that might be the real reason. But other sorts of fiction don't generally have that problem. It's only lazy fiction that risks a moral statement transforming into a prejudicial one.
We've a habit, it seems, of mistaking understanding for excuse. If anytime a character is explored at enough depth that understanding happens it turns into excuse… of course you can't write about evil. In order to write about evil, then, you've got to back off. Characters become stereotypes and, ta da, if your "bad guys" belong to some particular identifiable group, you've now got something prejudicial.
For a couple of years Hollyweird in its quest to find uncontroversial bad guys settled on the Serbs, for example in The Peacemaker, Behind Enemy Lines, 24.
I know there was the civil war in Bosnia and Kosovo and atrocities happened – but there never was an act of Serbian terrorism against the USA (despite our bombing campaign) or any other foreign country. Truth is, they used Serbs because it was convenient – they already got a bad press, they were white, Christian, spoke with menacing slavic accents, there weren´t many of them – and they were not going to cut your head off for offending them. Those movies might have been more memorable but for the lazy choice of villain.
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that the villians in Basterds are Nazis because it's set in WWII era France…
Oh that would be an excellent sequel!! Take it from Jesus exit from the tomb with that look on Jim C's face that said (at least my interpretation of the look) "Okay boys and girls. It's time to kick some spiritual booty." That would be great!
"Truth is, they used Serbs because it was convenient – they already got a bad press, they were white, Christian, spoke with menacing slavic accents, there weren´t many of them"
I don't know if I'd necessarily agree since eastern Europeans were the villains in many movies long before Kosovo happened, but your point is well taken. Ironically the Serbs were our WWII allies and the rodent we had in the White House, Bill Clinton, bombed our allies and destroyed every bridge over the Danube river. It's no surprise liberals bombed the wrong side.
I think the reason that "contemporary" villains aren't often used is because it dates the movie so badly. A film too fixated on immediate conflicts will either quickly become irrelevant or be dismissed as blatant propaganda. The best films–even ones that draw clear lines between good and evil–benefit from a historical perspective.
I agree. I don't think it's fair to criticize Basterds because it's set during the era when Nazis were the bad guys. If it was set during the present day then, sure, criticize all you want. It's not like Sum of all Fears where Nazis are made the bad guys in the present day.
I wonder what Mr. Nolte and others will say about the Captain America movie that is due out summer 2011. It will be an origin movie and his origin is during WWII fighting Nazis. Will it be considered a "safe" movie?
In the hands of a good storyteller, my breakfast this morning could also be an excellent film. Yes, I am aware of Paul's life after his conversion. But there is a reason why Veggietales, as amusing and well done to me as they are, have a life mostly relegated to the discount DVD bin.
If a flick about Paul had mass appeal, a movie would have been made about him by now. Acts is not a big secret.
MovieBob—I don’t think it’s very likely that Tarantino started out with the idea of simply making a movie set in World War II-era France, only to settle on an antagonist after the choice of time period and location had been made. The movie is set in World War II-era France only because he wanted to make a movie about fighting Nazis.
Exactly. And hell, why not broaden the audience to include the Jewish crowd? I would love to see a competently done, dramatic depiction of the life of King David. Y’know, one without talking vegetables.
My sentiments exactly. Even if a contemporary action thriller uses a real enemy, it would come off like a cheap, ripped-from-the-headlines attempt to be "relevant." The only way anyone can do the current conflict justice is to base any such films on true stories — not "realistic" fictional stories, but true stories.
Even then, such stories can definitely benefit from historical perspective.
Okay, but so what? Tarantino wanted to make a movie about fighting Nazis, so he that's what he made. I don't see the ideological problem here. I really want Tarantino to make a science fiction movie, but that doesn't mean he's under any obligation to do so.
Taylor Caldwell novelized the lives of both Paul and Luke in the books "Great Lion of God" and "Dear and Glorious Physician", respectively. They are no longer in print but can be picked up at a local library. Both are excellent reads and I think she dramatized the men of the early church in a compelling and appealing way (and shocker, is not offensive to Christians!). Excellent source material for an "Acts of the Apostles" movie, besides the New Testament, of course.
Where's True Lies 2, dagummit!
Allright, to clear the air here, the Bad Guys in Rambo who get shot to smithereens are ACTUAL REAL World Communists who have Killed hundreds of Thousands of People. In fact, several critics of the Film complained that it goes too far to Demonize the Burmese. His movie literally inspired the Burmese Resistance. The Man who plays the Camp Commandant is a real Life Burmese resistance leader . Live for nothing or Die for something is a common saying among them now. And lets not forget that this is the latest rendition in a series of Unapologetic Commie Bashing.
Now, for the most part I agree with the sentiment of this article, but saying Rambo (A movie directed by Slyvester Stallone, a Registered Republican) is playing it safe as part of the Liberal Media establishment is unfair bullshit.
Gutfeld just dropped 30 points in my estimation, we need more Movies like Taken, and Torino, AND Rambo.
Allright, to clear the air here, the Bad Guys in Rambo who get shot to smithereens are ACTUAL REAL World Communists who have Killed hundreds of Thousands of People. In fact, several critics of the Film complained that it goes too far to Demonize the Burmese.Stallones movie literally inspired the Burmese Resistance. The Man who plays the Camp Commandant is a real Life Burmese resistance leader . Live for nothing or Die for something is a common saying among them now. And lets not forget that this is the latest rendition in a series of Unapologetic Commie Bashing.
Now, for the most part I agree with the sentiment of this article, but saying Rambo (A movie directed by Slyvester Stallone, a Registered Republican) is playing it safe as part of the Liberal Media establishment is unfair bullshit.
Gutfeld just dropped 30 points in my estimation, we need more Movies like Taken, and Torino, AND Rambo.
Excellent point, Rex. Television is a better medium for today's villain. It is revealing that early Hollywood considered its product disposable. Our current generations grew up watching old movies on late night TV and discovered their transcendent qualities. Now we don't need a film society to view rare movies. We have the video store and NetFlix.
I think the current movies that aim to be popular don't care if they are disposable. Hopefully, they will be enjoyed by future generations. Who wouldn't put Indiana Jones and Back to the Future in that category? But I also think there is a need for filmmakers that explore a deeper subtext, and for artists who have a vision of the future. All this left / right, liberal / conservative stuff sounds too much like the Soviet Political Bureau weighing in.
I don't disagree with you at all. See my reply to Lon above–I think it addresses your point, as well.
I could be wrong but I get the feeling it's a big secret to you as you don't seem to have read it.
How do you explain that 10+ run of anti war movie flops? They just keep churning them out even though they have to know they will lose money on an epic level.
Love the "Edsels" vs "Mustangs" analogy. The crux of John's essay is that the calling card of the left is subversion.
Off topic, but being a business wonk, I just have to be all agog at the news that Taken was made for the same amount normally spent on a single "A-List" actor.
Which shows that it was more than political incorrectness that sets that film apart from Hollywood.
There were a LOT of things about Kosovo and the Bosnian/Serbian war that we were told that were outright lies (e.g., 10,000 Muslims killed in Kosovo when less than 3,000, civilians AND military, on all sides – including Croats – were actually killed). But, as you pointed out, the Serbs were a convenient "bad guy." As Serg Trifkovic points out in "The Sword of the Prophet," the Clinton admin all but admitted, outright, that we fought for the Bosnians in order to assuage Muslim anger over Iraq. No one, today, talks about the continuing attacks on Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries that sometimes find themselves confronted by mobs of Muslims that are actually *bused* to the remote sites to destroy them. (Took a Canadian team, working with the UN, to bring that to light).
Of course, then there is the "Sum of All Fears" debacle. And, to Great Satan: what can you say when the Nazis, of all groups, used to complain to their superiors about the brutality of the Bosnian troops fighting for the Germans? Yikes . . .
the sinner,
Patrick
Really? Funny, I find that most Christians don't even know all that goes on in Acts. There's some pretty harrowing stuff in there. Usually, I find the West knows about Acts only insofar as popular stories or movies go.
the sinner,
Patrick
Can we just get over ourselves here, John, et al. and realize that people go to GOOD movies whatever the villains look like. We are talking here about MOVIES, kids, not the Holy Grail, etc.
'Its not about money! It's about sending a message…'
It's a great time to get involved in watching much older movies since the current crop is such a disgrace to movie making. However it's unbelievably adorable that even liberals can't watch their own fecal material on screen.
"Money-driven industries don’t keep making Edsels and ignore the Mustang."
Thankfully, Ford managed to dodge the gov'mint takeover and Mustangs are still in production.
Unfortunately in today's Hollywood it would most likely be "The Passion 2: This Time It's Personal".
Indeed, if anything, it was East Europeans (and those brave Brits) who sided with us, backed us up and stood with us in the war on terror when the rest of Europe stood by and criticized us for defending our right to live and to live free.
It's so sad to be so politically partisan it has to poison everything, even the movies.
Movies get made for a million different reasons. And not every movie is representative of a political stance, or even the viewpoint of a particular studio. And I don't know what movie houses you go to, but the ones around me are full of movies with guns and good vs evil stories. Even kids movies have cgi-gerbils toting automatic rifles–yeah, real liberal propaganda. And isn't the "National Treasure" series a gushing love story to America?
Like your political stance, you seem not angry that your views and preferences aren't represented, but that the other side is represented at all.
And by the way, those handful of failed leftist war movies you guys trot out for every argument–they still made more money than the even-bigger-failed Ben Stein movie and that "An American Carol."
I would get into that.
Sheldon, I believe that's the message we are trying to send to Hollywood, not the other way round. They are the ones that have a list of villains which are forbidden, not us.
and pair him off with either Jackie Chan or Chris Tucker
Arnold has gotten distracted from his true calling for the moment
So I don't get to comment on this site?
Will all of you hurry up and make an indie action hero of the Pro American Conservative Patriotic Crusader ass kicken variant!!!??? COME ON!!!
I had not heard of those, but I will check them out. Thanks!
"Ten Commandments" and "Samson and Delilah" were both big box office hits, not to mention "Ben Hur" and "The Robe".
I could see smaller, more personal movies about Paul or Acts. The intensity of "The Passion" made it such a big film.
The BIG problem in today's Hollywood is: which studio would have the kishkas to produce a movie with a Christian or religious theme?
First Blood villain- small time sheriff hostile to veterans.
Part II villains- Viet Cong and Russians.
Part III villains- Russians.
Part IV villains- Myanmar communists.
Part V villains- Mexican drug and human traffickers.
Yep definitely playing it safe in liberal lala land…
Gutfeld is clueless.
Yeah, but they're still making them. These things can't have all gone into preproduction before Hollywood found out the hard way that they would bomb. Surely they would have stopped greenlighting those movies at some point.
Spending like sensible f__king people actually works once in a while, apparently.
Hollywood Villains: Leftist Agenda Trumps Audience Appeal
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-nolte/2009/09/0...
Of course, then there is the "Sum of All Fears" debacle. And, to Great Satan: what can you say when the Nazis, of all groups, used to complain to their superiors about the brutality of the Bosnian troops fighting for the Germans? Yikes . . .
The Germans depravity was reserved for the Jews; on the battlefield they were probably no more barbaric than others in the fight, except of course for the Japanese. The Bosnians that wore the SS uniform were muslims; the fascists recruited them. And these muslim subhumans brought their bloodlust that they would deliver upon Jews in pogroms onto the battlefield and civilian populace. And the author you mentioned, Serg Trifkovic, is right about Clinton; he did admit that the deaths were greatly exaggerated. Of course with Clinton it's a minor oversight, especially since it was Christians that they bombed. With Bush it's "he lied! people died!"
"Mexican drug and human traffickers."
Actually, it sounds allot like Taken, so yeah, Gutfeld should stop bitching about Rambo already.
The big surge of anti-Iraq war films we saw a few years back now has played out, and we certainly won’t be seeing anything like it in the foreseeable future. But, of course, we will continue to see a steady stream of all kinds of movies with left-wing political bias in the years to come, whether that bias is explicit or implicit. I’m not disagreeing with what Mr. Nolte wrote. I was simply pointing out that, in addition to the overt, deliberate politicking being done by filmmakers today, there were also more subtle factors at work which also promote left-wing bias.
"the Clinton admin all but admitted, outright, that we fought for the Bosnians in order to assuage Muslim anger over Iraq."
That and to cover his ass from the Lewinski Scandal.
I really have nothing to say other than Taken Kicks Ass.
An indie film could be made and if directed, written and acted well, could have quite a draw.
Chris Tucker, oh no!
"Jesus, why you got that prickly-ass thing on your head, man? Can't you put some Bactine an' a Band-Aid on yourself? An why all these people up in here speakin' all crazy? I don't understand the words comin' out ANYBODY'S mouth! Jesus? Jesus? Where ya goin'?"
I absolutely agree Mr Nolte. The Hollywood leftists plough the profits made from commercial films into those made strictly for propaganda. To them, it does not matter if these films make a profit, although they would prefer if they did, all that really counts is that the ideas in them are embedded in the culture. In that, they have been highly successful.
However, even some of the films you mention as good are riddled with PC. For example, Iron Man's greatest foe, by universal consent, is the Mandarin, a Chinese villain who believes himself to be China's true emperor. Instead of this interesting character we are given a dreary 1980s creation, the boardroom takeover villain, whose codename The Iron Monger is so embarrassing that it is never mentioned in the film. Why is this, except American film makers now have anti-big business as their default position.
Almost all of these superhero films have difficulty with foreign enemies preferring instead the comfort of homegrown corporate American villains, or (since I'm English and tend to notice) by British actors. The Hulk's foe, the Abomination, who should be Russian was oddly played by Tim Roth. Why are a disproportionate amount of villains played by English actors? I daresay the actors relish the work, but it would be inconceivable if any other nation were so depicted. Can you imagine if ever other film's bad guy was played by Jamaicans?
Perhaps this is a throwback to the war of Independence, but it is a bit tiresome that the British are portrayed as wicked at every opportunity. Oh well, perhaps the latest double dealing by the Scottish socialist state over Al Megrahi might persuade the American right that the historical travesty Braveheart is NOT a conservative film.
I dunno, but "Casa Blanca", released in 1943 makes no bones about making the Nazis bad guys, and still manages to be about the BEST DAM' MOVIE EVER MADE.
The Hollywood of the 40's and early 50's backed our war effort, and make the Japanese and Germans totally evil. The revisionism came later; Col. Saito in "Bridge on the River Kwai" (1956) shows some vulnerability beneath his bushido facade.
Your reasoning buys into the politically correct template that discourages one from making distinctions about right and wrong—except when to do so condemns the US military, Big Corporations or President Bush. Nobody's waiting for "historical perspective" in those cases.
"He's back, and he's mad as Hell."
"Gran Torino" and "Taken" — two great & surprising stories to behold.
Welcome to this country, sir, but aren't you forgetting the facts that show – 1. There were 66 million murdered under the Russian rule from 1917- 1953? 2. The only really major league anti-Soviet (Russian)movie from 1970-1993 was 'Red Dawn?'
I don't watch the leftist movies and when I see than an actor is a leftist I avoid their movies like the plague. No reason to give money to people who want to sell me down the river to socialism.
Thank you but I didn’t mean to give the impression I’m fresh off the boat. I’ve been here over 20 years now. I understand using eastern Europeans as villains, particularly if the movie takes place in that part of the world or if it’s an era piece. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed movies like Rounder’s and Eastern Promises. During the Cold War America and the USSR played chess, occasionally escalating the stakes to see how far the other side was willing to go. Russia viewed America as an adversary rather than an enemy. The islamists however view both America and Russia as an enemy; Hollywood could create some great films portraying this real menace that both nations face. A movie where special ops from both countries collaborate on decimating some islamist swine would be welcome.
By the way, Red Dawn was fantastic.
I'm just a viewer, and couldn't begin to offer advice on how to make a successful film. I just agree, I'm sick of being insulted by Hollywood. Wether it's the TV monotone idiocy of the View, West (leftwing) Wing, or the endless stream of Gee…. career military guys are crazy or evil, less they are liberal, then they'e tortured by angst…. or the west is bad bad, and ONLY the third world is moral… well between the coup's and genocides,.. but we are much much worse,.. or so they tell us.
I loved the Star Wars films, till, Lucas opened his mouth, and now, I can't get his liberal arrogance out of my head. Obama is a jedi knight?
You can't imagine, the utter geektatude and the hubris over selfrighteous moral authority that plays to out here in Ohio. George, get over yourself, it's fiction, member? And in my world, Count Dukoo and the Emporer were more Ted Kennedy and Kerry, than any republican you can smear.
Great observations. Everytime I see a George Clooney film advertised I suspect that I am going to get preached at, and decline to go. I am not alone in this or his last few movies would have been monster hits. (Can anyone even name one, other than the "Oceans" movies? I already know Oliver Stones take on just about everything, so no need to see any of his movies. Brad Pitt…good in Inglorious, but anyone could have done that bit, it was just that good of a role. Love Tarantino…no politics, lots of action.
Somehow Hollywood mixed "fame" up with "importance".
This is what I have been told. The British accent comes across to Americans as patrician, rich, cold, and snobbish. It invokes inherited privilege. On a more positive note, it may also connote erudition, classical scholarship, and elderly wisdom. Many professorial roles are played by Brits, as are sage roles like Obi Wan Kenobi. Americans—quite foolishly, of course—-will in their imagination add a nice chunk of IQ points to anyone with a British accent.
Uncouth, low class types, OTOH, will most often have a Southern accent, even if the drama is set in Oregon. This is especially true of rural villains and clowns. Non-Southerners will deduct IQ points from anyone with a Southern accent. This, they say, is why Yankees have traditionally been sitting ducks for Southern salesmen with an easy-going drawl. They are caught unawares.
As a Latina immigrant——(legal! and a citizen now for over 25 years!!!!)— I was not tuned in to these subtleties for a long, long time and they still are not automatic for me. But I can assure you there are similar accent-stereotypes in the Spanish-speaking world.)
I think it's kinda funny that people ignore the fact that "Basterds" is a remake (of an Italian film, at that!). I believe that Tarantino wanted to preserve the B-movie premise in the movie, but tweak it to his creative tastes.
G.I. Joe is a joke. Moving on…
I really don't want to talk about Rambo, since the original's message was almost entirely lost (right up until the last moments of the film) and I haven't seen any of the others films.
Either way, my opinion is this: Having politically correct villains isn't going to keep me from watching a film, but if it's plot goes out of it's way to show that the "villains" motive isn't evil I'm gonna groan and stop watchin'. Films should be about entertainment, first and foremost!
An interesting point. However, the rule of British actors playing the baddie obtains even when they are required to play other nationalities, even Americans. Albert Finney as a CIA chief, Anthony Hopkins in Nixon, Gary Oldman as Lee Harvie Oswald. The list goes on and on.
Their 'American' accents are usually weird and unconvincing.
To add to this bizarreness, English characters, if Hollywood considers them virtuous, are usually played by American actors, with likewise peculiar accents like Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie.
Very strange actually.
The Acts of the Apostles. Could be just as powerful.No-brainer is Hollywood really was money driven.
I agree that there is a decidedly left-wing political agenda at work in Hollywood, and you’ve made a very persuasive case for that proposition here, Mr. Nolte. At the same time, however, Mr. Gutfeld isn’t entirely wrong either. I’m sure that if given the choice, Hollywood filmmakers would choose to make money rather than not make money.
So why are Hollywood films today the way they are? A conscious wish to make explicit political statements is part of the reason, certainly. But there’s more to it than that. I also think that, to some extent, Hollywood’s all-pervasive leftism probably colors their expectations of what will make money and what will not, whether consciously or not. And that leads me to a related point—the bias is, I think, often unconscious. That is to say, this all-pervasive left-wing worldview has become so internalized that I suspect it colors creative and financial decision-making at every level, even in cases where an explicit political statement is not really what the filmmaker had in mind.
One of the other things that make "The Dark Knight" a success, and which was commented on often after the fact, was it's one of the few successful allegories Hollywood has done in recent years (even if the allegory here of George W. Bush-as-Batman wasn't one the left in Hollywood wanted to even admit was in the movie).
These days, it's not just that the left wants to get their message into their movies, it's that there is absolutely nothing subtle about the message, compared to, say, some 50s movies like "High Noon" or even "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" that liberals celebrate for their hidden meanings. You can't watch any of today's liberal message movies without being hammered over the head again and again that the message trumphs everything — narrative, characterization, plot logic, etc.
I suppose for conservatives it's actually a good thing now that liberals in Hollywood either don't have the talen or the inclination to clothe their message in a more interesting manner, becasue they'd rather make themselves feel good than do the same for their audience. Who wants to pay $11 to be harangued for 120 minutes by a group of people who've decided that 'educating' the viewing audience is more important than entertaining them?
Hollywood is generally scared pee-less to disparage Arabs lest it bring retaliation down on their heads…they're cowed just like the Scottish government…they release a convicted terrorist on "humanitarian grounds" while apparently having Mulim Jihadist camps operating in their country…morally weak and dishonest…
You’re right—there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with “Inglorious Basterds” being about Nazis. But the criticism being made isn’t really about Tarantino’s movie specifically. The point is that this movie is emblematic of a larger problem with Hollywood and the body of work it produces, i.e. the predominance of bad guys that are politically “safe,” which is to say, bad guys that those on the political left will not find offensive. That larger problem is the real target of the criticism, not “Inglorious Basterds” so much.
Duh, were talking Hollywood here…"Passion of the Christ 2" I mean what else could you name it?
I don't think the other *working title* "Roll That Stone Away" did that well in audience pre-screens…
"Three Days Later" was getting ~whitenoised~ by "The Day After Tomorrow"…is this another eco-flick, ugh..
Damn sorry, Sterg…I stole your "Passion 2" take, sorry didn't see it, it's late…should be home not in uni-library…
Because ceaselessly making villains out of Muslims will encourage bigotry…duh.
It's the same reason why characters who are Jewish (and look like it) aren't presented as money lords in movies. It encourages bigotry…nevermind the existence of a Bernie Madoff.
I can't see how it would be possible to criticize Inglorious Basterds for having PC Nazi villains, since QT's entire motivation for the film was to pay his respects to genera films about WW II like The Dirty Dozen. Nazis were the only choice. BTW, I saw it last week and thought it was good, but not great (While District 9, OTOH, was so bad I walked out on it: I almost never do that). Additionally, having the heros being Jewish is sorta/kinda non-PC these days, isn't it? And, even obliquely referring to the holocaust is also dicey ground in certain circles now, correct?
My point is, Inglorious Basterds really doesn't belong in this discussion at all, IMO, because it has too many PC-contradictory aspects to it.
I think the explanations I’ve offered suffice—a combination of explicit politicking and a subtle left-wing political bias that shapes creative and financial decision-making on both a conscious and unconscious level. You have to realize that almost certainly none of the people involved in those magnificent flops started off with the idea that they would lose money on an epic level. That’s not something they “knew” at all. Rather, that is something that only became apparent in retrospect. In fact, at the time they probably thought they were going to cash in on a tide of anti-Bush animus. Oops! You have to bear in mind, too, that the lead time for a film project is often years long. By the time the first of those 10 movies came out and flopped, the remainder were all in the process of production already. And the rest, as they say, is history.
As I stole it from Weird Al's "Ghandi 2", I've got no complaint.
Clearly Hollywood has an agenda. Just try and count the number of times white male corporate executives are portrayed as corrupt, criminal and violent with the actual crime statistics, which tell a very different tale. Do you know how rare it is for an upper middle class white male to commit a violent crime? But this narrative fits the world-view and prejudices of the left. There are many other examples, such as how many TV shows portray fathers as dunces and mothers as superwomen, or the portrayal of deadbeat Dads. I mean, when is the last time you saw a portrayal of a divorced father who does more than his legal obligation for his children – it happens all the time in the real world, but is a rarity on TV.
White males often end up as villains because white males are often the heroes.
This isn't really a NEW phenomenon. Ian Fleming's villians were the KGB and the USSR but Hollyweird chose to make them S.P.E.C.T.R.E. when making the 007 movies. This was most starkly true in the second of the series, "From Russia With Love." Afraid of offending the Russians? Who would have POSSIBLY cared…except the Russians, of course, and when "Dr. No" came out they'd just threatened to "bury" us.
Cheesehoven,
British Actors play most villains because the best actors are mostly British! (1) The Brit accent lends credibility and intelligence (that's also why a disproportional number of our ads are voiced over by people with Brit accents). (2) A compelling villain is much more difficult to portray than a hero. Plenty of talentless pretty faces do just fine as the good guy, but a light-weight baddie ruins the movie.
This has nothing to do with American feelings toward the UK. We don't fear you and we're not really jealous. Nor are we hateful, vengeful, or distrustful. We don't think you're a nation of villains. You're simply superior thespians.
We steal your actors, your best shows, and if anything is "too british" we just steal the idea and recast it with our hacks. And if you ask the average viewer, they don't even know that it was all done first in the UK.
John – I have to say I completely agree with you on this. Hollywood big guns have so much money they can actually afford to let ideology trump box office. I think actors today actually have to show their liberal bona fides in order to get plum roles. That is pretty much an opinion without any facts to back it up, but it's what I believe.
As a director, I always wanted to make a film about the Acts. There is so much intensity in the Acts. It can be an amazing movie.
By the way, Axl, did you really say "Those events may have been historically significant, but it does not mean they become the next set of Bourne films, or even slightly interesting to the average person, or even a Christian like me." May've been?
They changed the course of human history, those events. Even if you are not a Christian, it's pretty obvious. Of course, converting the entirs Roman Empire is not as ecxiting as watching metrosexual Matt Damon running away from CIA, but there can be some great visuals, like the fire of Rome, gladiators, lions, catacombs.
Let's face it – it wasn't his ass that needed covering…
"Hey, baldy!"
"Give me a steak – medium rare." (Sad truth: I had to explain that line to someone.)
A friend told me that he believes all this started during the Vietnam War. The kids who were protesting government authority (and all other authority, really) decided that they weren't going to treat their kids like that…which in turn begat the parents-as-buddies attitude, the Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory grade curve, feelings being more important than right and wrong, and so on.
I think he may be on to something.
A friend told me that he believes all that "spoiled children" stuff started during the Vietnam War. The kids who were protesting government authority (and all other authority, really) decided that they weren't going to treat their kids like that…which in turn begat the parents-as-buddies attitude, the Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory grade curve, feelings being more important than right and wrong, and so on.
I think he may be on to something.
The _Great_Satan,
If you don't mind me asking, how long have you lived in the US? You have such a strong command of the English language and US culture. You have always impressed me as someone very intelligent, that may have helped facilitate matters, but I am a little shocked to read you aren't native born.
Movie Bob is being obtuse. It wasn't that the movie was wrong to feature Nazis because of its time period, the point is that we don't see movies with bad guys that are our current bad guys. Understand?
You must be logged in to post a comment.