Red Pill vs. Blue Pill: Defense of Hollywood Fails Reality Test
by John NolteOver the weekend at Townhall.com, Carl Horowitz took Big Hollywood and everyone else he sees as “reprehensible … dyspeptic … insufferably smug, moralizing antiquarians” to task for lacking the “elementary logic to understand” that “the ‘agenda’ of today’s American filmmakers, aside from making money, is storytelling.”
In the opening of his piece, Horowitz portrays himself as someone with a libertarian streak and because I tend to take people at their word, that’s what makes his column all the more troubling. Leftists carrying Hollywood’s water I can take. But those who should be sympathetic to our side choosing the blue pill — choosing not to see reality – choosing instead to rhetorically assault those of us who do… Well, let’s just say it’s awfully hard to defend yourself in an ideological war if your own troops haven’t figured out how hard they’re working for the other side.
The lack of logic and depth of denial Horowitz must employ to see Hollywood as he so desperately wants to see it – as a place where the “Hollywood vs. America” charge is a “trope” – is revealing. We’ll start with Horowitz’s own words and bio:
Carl F. Horowitz is director of the Organized Labor Accountability Project of the National Legal and Policy Center, a Townhall.com Gold Partner organization dedicated to promoting ethics in American public life.
Here’s a quote from his article:
My own Hollywood ambitions, sadly, go no further than seeing a new movie once or twice a week.
In other words, it’s safe to say that the sum total of Horowitz’s experience with Hollywood is, well, going to the movies. And yet he thinks he knows more than a … Hollywood screenwriter?
Conservative novelist Andrew Klavan likewise groused last year in the Washington Post, “Hollywood moviemakers…have been telling lies – loudly, constantly and almost always in support of a left-wing point of view…(For conservatives) the door is shut, the fix is in, and the blacklist – or least a graylist – is alive and well.”
Put a sock in it, mates.
“Put a sock in it”? Really? What next, Mr. Horowitz? Will you be telling rocket scientists where to put a sock because you know better how NASA works after watching a few space shuttle launches?
Maybe Horowitz simply didn’t bother to Google Klavan and missed the whole screenwriting thing. Research doesn’t appear to be a big part of his modus operandi:
A latter-day Comintern, they inform us, roams the studios with terrifying power, making sure all scripts toe a far-left party line while forcing conservatives to hide their views in the closet to stay employed. (Apparently, Bruce Willis and Sylvester Stallone never got that memo.)
Are we talking about the same Bruce Willis who famously declared himself, “not a Republican” in 2006 – and the same Sylvester Stallone who donates more money to Democrats than to Republicans?
Either Willis and Stallone are not Republicans or they are and for some reason feel it’s a good idea to hedge their political bets. Either way… Hmmm?
The rest of Horowitz’s piece is what I would call a bonanza of cherry picking designed to back his way into a predetermined political point. But even his cherry picks don’t do much to validate his point:
If mainline film studios have been mocking anything all this time, it’s been their own world. Starting with the late Robert Altman’s darkly amusing takedown of his industry, The Player (1992), we’ve seen a raft of witty Tinseltown self-parodies. Think of The Muse (Albert Brooks), Bowfinger (Steve Martin), State and Main (David Mamet), Tropic Thunder (Ben Stiller) and What Just Happened (Barry Levinson).
What logic. I guess five self-mocking titles over nearly two decades somehow trumps the full court press of 15 or so (and counting) anti-war movies we’ve seen in just two years “mocking” our country and, most unforgivably, those who defend it.
Give Horowitz credit, though. If anything, his ability to write a piece declaring the argument of “Hollywood vs. America” a “trope” without mentioning or attempting to explain away Hollywood’s two year cinematic assault on a America still at war displays a willingness to suspend disbelief like few others.
After all, he doesn’t even see what’s happening in some of the films he lists to support his own argument. “Enemy of the State,” “Minority Report,” and “Eagle Eye” are not libertarian manifestos. Unless I missed it, the heroes in those films aren’t on the run from the EPA or Department of Education. They’re on the run from the left’s favorite whipping boy: those who keep America safe.
Wake up and smell the allegory.
Hey, I loved “Iron Man” as much as Horowitz did, but that doesn’t mean I missed the third act where the arch-villain’s revealed to be *yawn* just another rich, white, corporate baddie invested in America’s evil Military Industrial Complex.
I could go on, but everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, and if Horowitz is one of the fortunate still blind to Hollywood’s ideological war on all things traditional and American – I envy him. I love movies and the thought of returning to the days where one could relax and settle in for the latest from Tinseltown without having to worry about some leftist cheap shot or outright anti-American polemic would be bliss.
Damn that red pill.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
45 Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Michael Chavez and DNC DUDES, Mr. Pink. Mr. Pink said: Red Pill vs. Blue Pill: Defense of Hollywood Fails Reality Test http://tinyurl.com/yljvlkh [...]
"My own Hollywood ambitions, sadly, go no further than seeing a new movie once or twice a week."
Ha! That's what 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 potentially 9 NEW movies a month? Really?
"Sadly" isn't the word.
I was waiting for a response to the piece discussed. I read Horowitz's column, all the while shaking my head as I saw his head sticking in the sand, deeper and deeper.
I did the same thing, except his head wasn't in sand….
I know very little about the entertainment industry, most of what I have learned has come from BH.
Even I can see the bias on this side of both small and big screens.
Most people who don't see it, because that's how they think too, so it all seems normal.
Here's how I explain it to people. Picture a ruler. Six inch mark is the middle, lets call that the true political center. Now move left to the three inch rule. That's where most people think the political center is, with the democrats sitting further left at one and a half inch and the GOP sitting at four and a half inches slightly to the right.
That's right, I said four and half inches. I can count the number of republican politicians who believe in the integrity of the constitution, freedom and personal liberty, and small, limited government, on about three and half fingers.
Place Marxists/Communists about about one-eighth of inch. And socialists/progressives/modern liberals on the one inch mark.
Libertarians go on the nine inch mark, my self included.
Oh, and anarchists don't go on the ruler, because they just would take it and use to to break something.
I think I see maybe two or three movies at the theatres PER YEAR. The great majority of Hollywood fare 1) is offensive to me or 2) is not worth my time and money to see. When I do go, I try to go to a $5 matinee show.
Even video rental is not easy. There just isn't much I care to watch. I watched both Transformers movies over the course of a week, and I was surprised that they had done well at the box office because THEY BOTH STANK. Awful dialogue, wooden acting, just terrible.
Hollywood has a real problem whether Horowitz wants to admit it or not, and it's not just the tyranny of ideology that's taking a toll on a once-great industry. It's plain old laziness that's damaging the bottom line too.
LOL, right on, Hank!
I see a new movie every now and then, although the happiness netflix has brought knows no bounds.
I didn't read the source article, but I can see an argument for Minority Report as an anti-statist pro-libertarian film. PKD in general was excessively paranoid, and one of the things that MR showcased was the ability of those in power to corrupt systems once they're in place. I think this is beyond the left/right distinction and goes more toward the "don't give power to nameless bureaucracies" vein. I have certainly noticed a fashion in filmmaking toward statism and condemnation of the US military (much the same way that smoking has gone out of fashion), and I don't like that.
An even worse fashion in filmmaking, however, is toward completely unlikeable protagonists in unpleasant scenarios. Yuck.
Good piece John, you're absolutely right to call out this faux libertarian and faux expert. I suspect his libertarian streak extends about as far as drug legalization and that's about it. Otherwise he sure sounds like he's all about leftwing authoritarianism and would happily support speech codes that shut up those with whom he does not agree.
Also, thanks for pointing out the Bruce Willis and Stalone bits, too many conservatives heard that they are good conservatives, but missed the details that disproved that.
When it comes to discovering a film (or films) that did gangbuster business at the box office, remember the line attributed to Uncle Miltie (Milton Berle):
"Only take out enough to win."
[Continued]
If contemporary Hollywood is about telling stories, then they should tell Bible stories. There is no improvement on the good book. All of this politics, right and left, liberal and conservative, is of the world. Jesus taught that we must not be of the world if we want to obtain the kingdom of heaven. There is no other message that needs to be sent other than that.
I haven't seen either of the Transformers films, but I bet there is a certain amount of fun in them… however, I presume DontTread is right on the money: poor dialogue, wooden acting, and so on.
What's his name knows just want an audience wants… bangs, flashes, chases, crashes, smashing machines rendered in CGI, and so on. That's not inherently bad, but folks like Don'tTread and myself usually want a little more in our films, especially when it comes to the frequency we are likely to spend money on a film (not to mention the amount of money we spend on a film).
[Continued]
[Continued, and concluded]
In that respect, some film directors only take out enough to win… win big box office cash. Look at Lucas and Spielberg with the most recent Indiana Jones film. No one expected brilliant dialogue, but could we at least get back to the snappy lines from Raiders and Last Crusade? Could we have a little more style and swagger? Spielberg and Lucas didn't make the exciting chases and thrilling fist fights… they made eye-popping spectacles (again, nothing wrong with that) and hair-raising CGI enhanced threats, which unfortunately didn't quite fit the style of the first three films.
Had they focused a little more on the story (it was fine) and the dialogue and keeping the style of Indy, and making the whole damn thing a little more coherent then their film would have been more *fun*.
(They should have taken more shots at the godless Commies.)
I can count on one hand the number of hollywood movies I went to the theater to see in the past 7 or 8 years when I finally got sick and tired of the cheap shots at my faith or politics being inserted into films. As for hollywood being only about storytelling, why is the story almost always about poor innocent people against rich greedy american capitilasts? Witness The constant gardner, Blood Diamonds and the remake of The Manchurian Candidate.
I've written two screenplays. Neither was given much notice. They were probably right. Somehow, that doesn't make me an expert on Hollywood. In fact, I think it argues the opposite. However, my daughter has had two television scripts made into shows in the nineties. She isn't an expert on Hollywood either.
If you want my opinion on Hollywood as a theologian, there I'm an expert. Oddly enough, no one has asked for that. Go figure.
I'm sure Hollywood's main priority is storytelling. However, as we all know it's the same story – the same narrative, same underlying assumptions, the same protagonists and antagonists in just about every one. It seems to be short hand thinking on the part of screenwriters, directors, producers, actors. Always cast your hero as the "little guy." Always cast your villain as a member of some huge, corrupt organization, preferably government, the military, or big business. I guess the assumption is that everyone loves an underdog.
I guess this goes back basically forever. After all, Chaplin's Tramp was a little misunderstood guy constantly being hassled by the police, the town fathers, and other authority figures.
Within the little box of Hollywood/Union Leaders/Ivy League elitists, Bruce Willis & Sylvester Stallone are extreme right wingers. This is a result of how insulated from reality these people are. Harry Truman would be an extreme right-winger to them.
The narrative is especially evident in science fiction. It seems like 2/3 of sci fi movies are basically ripoffs of The Day the Earth Stood Still: friendly/benevolent/misunderstood/child-like alien(s) and one or two socially marginal human friends against vast, powerful, secretive, thoroughly paranoid government/military/industrial organizations, usually led by fanatical, career-climbing psychopaths.
Maybe they're consciously or unconsciously replaying Hollywood's experience during the McCarthy blacklist years. I wish they'd learn a new story sometime, though.
I agree that there are plenty of nauseating, preachy left wing films made and that there is no right wing counterpart. However, you have to consider how these films fit into the overall industry. The most glaring examples that are cited over and over in this debate are the slew of Iraq/Afganistan films (Stop Loss, In the Valley of Elah, etc..). However, none of these are large budget films. From the bit of quick research I've done it seems like most are in the $25 million range. Syriana was $50 million, but that's the most expensive I've come across. Those numbers pale in comparison to major tentpole projects. If the business is really pushing a far left agenda over profits where are the $200,000,000 left wing films? You also would have to really trace the financing of these projects to see just how much of their own money the studios dump into these projects. Again, I agree that there are not low budget, right wing films on the other end of the spectrum to balance this out.
These films come from the vocally liberal creative people in the business: the stars, producers, directors and writers. There are clearly far more publicly liberal stars than there are conservative ones. My point is that from a business perspective there is a reason for studios to let these projects happen. When George Clooney (Ocean's 11,12,13) and Matt Damon (Ocean's series, Borne series) are interested in Syriana do you spend a little money to stay on their good side and maybe use the project as a bargaining chip to get a star into your next blockbuster?
Again, where are the HUGE BUDGET far left wing films? Just as there are few blatant left wing mainstream films you can't expect to see far right mainstream films. Would you really invest your personal money in a $200 million movie with preachy moral or political messages from the right or the left?
Good critique of Indy 4. It definitely was not an Indy 1/3, but thank the Almighty it was not an Indy 2. Ugh. Shia Labeouf was not that great in either the Transformers flicks, or Indy 4 for that matter, not to mention Eagle Eye… I see a pattern here, nobody likes Shia Labeouf. Oh well.
What shows did your daughter help create? Just out of curiosity.
I'll settle comfortably at about nine and a quarter. Thanks for the map.
I think that the correct word he should be using is "pathetically".
Damn that red pill! Oughta be a t-shirt!
I've enjoyed what you've had to say since I've seen you on here Ed. That's a good visual you create there with the ruler. Nothing like clear and definitive marks to make a point.
I've been calling myself an Indemopublitarian lately. I agree with some aspects of all the political party affliations. But if I'm placed on your ruler, I would be standing about 9 myself.
Avatar comes out in another week and that's a blatantly liberal film with a huge budget (I've heard some say upward of 500 mil).
Anytime a Michael Bay movie comes out (with the exception of Pearl Harbor) prepare to see 2 trademarks: Gangbusters at the box office, horrible reviews.
I like Bay because despite the hammering his films get by the chic-crowd, they always make a fortune.
That's a new one, and really one to remember.
Excellent visual. I have wondered why people we are viewed as extremist. A bit over 200 years ago, it was maybe an extreme mindset to believe a limited government was the best course. But even then there were precedents. Over the next 100 years in our Republic's history, for the most part, it seems that that minset was the mainstream. Now we are back to being extremists, but that is only in the view of the dominate media. Extreme statists are trying to convince moderate people, people that normally say keep the government out of my life in general, that they are extremists.
There are many contemporary films, and I'll bet a good number of TV shows (probably not the series as a whole) that have some basis of a Bible story in them. You just have to be willing to look deep. It's often tough for lefty writers and directors to tell the story they want and still have it ring true without the good message that you're looking for.
Dribs and drabs are just as good for their goal, probably better than a tent pole production. All they are looking to do in this respect is keep the flame alive. The less attention they draw to themselves the more they are able to manufacture the desired outcome.
Ok……now I have to look to see what color my pill is, I fell like I'm Alice in Wonderland, except I'm a guy, unless I'm not, then I'm a lesbian, I hope all that is politically correct and within the law!!!!! I think I'm going insane….can I have some stimulus and some health care!!!!!! I'll swallow your pill, just remind me which color!!!! Sorry neighbor….you have to give the government more money so they can send me a check!!!! I'm a Bonafide idiot now, I am a "Truther" (An outlaw)!!!!!!!!!!!!!….But just refer to me as an Idiot, that way I'll qualify for your money the government is giving away!!!!!!!!!
Also, Paul Greengrass' upcoming anti-u.s. military/ Iraq war preach-fest flick Green Zone cost around 150 mil to make.
(Apparently, Bruce Willis and Sylvester Stallone never got that memo.)
He's right! I guess we can shut down this website because two aging action stars in Hollywood are sermi-conservative.
Hollywood — high school with money
Like Buddhism, Libertarianism is a noble, long-established, philosophy with millions of serious and dedicated adherents around the world. And, like Buddhism, Libertarianism has suffered from the tragic fact that it is unbelievably attractive to complete jackasses.
I rather doubt Horowitz's head was "in the sand"; I suspect he knows exactly what he's doing when he tries to disguise Hollywood's propagandist tendencies. That's how the Left does things. If they are open and honest about their beliefs, views, intentions, etc., the don't get a chance to sneak in under the radar. The one exception is Barack Obama who told us exactly who he was by his speeches (he'll take from the oppressors and give to "those who earned it"), his choice of a wife ("America is a mean country"), his church (G-d d-n America Wright), his acquaintances (and perhaps ghostwriter) Domestic Terrorist, Ayers (who claims he didn't kill enough of us), his mentor (Frank Marshall, a known communist) and his friends ("I hung out with Marxists in college"). The rest of them, ala Horowitz, always feign to be libertarians in order to smack around conservative values. (And this from a former card carrying Libertarian).
Spouse and I used to see nearly every new film that came out. Now we go months without seeing a film either in the theatre or rented from On Demand. When we do rent or see a film, much of the time we're disappointed.
Given the reports on the diminishing box office, I suspect we're just part a growing crowd consisting of boycotters along with those who don't like the product being offered. Film "stars" are boring for the most part. There are a few exceptional actors (Meryl Streep is NOT one of those) and/or filmmakers but for the most part the parts go to the "in crowd" — reliable Lefties like George C. Looney (is there a film this year that DOESN'T have C. Looney in a leading role?) Flat Matt Damon, Sarah Jessica Jennifer Reese…
Rupert Murdoch made a fortune offering the public the non-censored view of the news (Fox) as did Rush Limbaugh (talk radio). I'm waiting for the entrepreneur to come along who starts making non-propaganda films and cleans up.
willis said in an interview that he happily supported obama. doesn't sound very conservative to me.
drop the school and i think you got it right.
"Pearl Harbor" was an absolute stinker, you're right… although, I've got to give him credit for the brilliant effects shots of the bombing sequences.
Josh "can't-act-his-way-out-of-a-wet-paper-bag" Harnett and Ben "inert-ingredient" Affleck were terribly mediocre… and the scenes where they do, uh… everything before, during, and after the bombing were AMAZINGLY silly.
People who can't see bias in the media and movies are the same people who don't think commercials influence them at all. There really needs to be a non partisan country wide required high school course on media in general, it's methods and influences.
Thanks!
I'm fine with Shia in Indy 4… but, if Lucas wants to get Indy 5 (and it sounds like he does), for the love of Christ no flying saucers, bring back Salah, keep Marion this time, andpull back on the digital effects.
The thrill of Indiana Jones getting back into the Nazi truck was that a real guy was underneath the truck and crawling back in the cab. A digital effects shot of that would be less interesting and less exciting.
Ironic that John Nolte is commenting that "…it’s safe to say that the sum total of Horowitz’s experience with Hollywood is, well, going to the movies." when that is pretty much Nolte's experience with Hollywood.
Too bad this response to Horowitz's suffers from similar delusions…
"the third act where the arch-villain’s revealed to be *yawn* just another rich, white, corporate baddie invested in America’s evil Military Industrial Complex."
Who was the hero in that story? A rich, white, corporate 'goodie' invested in America's 'good' Military Industrial Complex.
You must be logged in to post a comment.