Anti-Americanism is always the storyline in Hollywood
It seems that Hollywood has some new hot subject matter now with the current economic downturn:
Naturally the films will be anti-American and how we got in this mess because of--you guessed it--the American corporate "empire" supported by the Republican government.
If we are still having economic bad times (which I doubt, because Obama will be in) next year with Obama as president, I wonder how Hollywood will explain that? I am just hoping that so many of the studios are out of business, we won't have to find out.
Hollywood has found its new hot subject matter: the global economic meltdown.
Until recently, the slump had only been bad news for the movie industry as financial backers pulled out of what are often high-risk ventures. But the studios have now had time to develop proposals for pictures about the financial chaos, inspiring a clutch of big-budget films over the next year.
Naturally the films will be anti-American and how we got in this mess because of--you guessed it--the American corporate "empire" supported by the Republican government.
If we are still having economic bad times (which I doubt, because Obama will be in) next year with Obama as president, I wonder how Hollywood will explain that? I am just hoping that so many of the studios are out of business, we won't have to find out.
posted by Helen at 1:36 PM
25 Comments:
I find it interesting how Hollywood has so much disdain for capitalism, the very system that permits them to spread and benefit from so much garbage. Yet seems so intersted in socialism and marxism, the very systems that would not tolerate their garbage, let alone let them benefit from it.
Mind boggling.
To answer the question "If we are still having economic bad times next year with Obama as president, I wonder how Hollywood will explain that?" The answer is anything good during the Obama administration will be credit Obama, and anything bad will be credited Bush.
That is something I fault Bush for... He moved the country left, and conservatism is taking the blame for it.
@Trust said... "The answer is anything good during the Obama administration will be credit Obama, and anything bad will be credited Bush."
Examples:
Good news headlines: "The slogan was change, and change has come: during the first year of the Obama adminstration the econonmy has turned around." Story works anytime, even before Obama's policies are in effect.
Bad news headline: "The economic woes continue years after the downturn began during the war-plagued years of the Bush administration."
The media is really adept at twisting things to their agenda. I especially love the red state / blue state flip that mostly went unnoticed. Before 2000, Republicans were blue and Democrats were red, the reason being that red was considered the soviet/socialist/leftist colors. It was a twist of hand to disassociate the Democratic party with communism/fascism.
The media is quite adept.
Hollywood makes films to make money. It is big business. The actors may be lefties but the money people are not--the producers are in the biz for the money. Clint Eastwood dislike America? nonsense.
The economic mess is worth a film, much as the great depression or WWII etc were worth films.
What Obama will do remains unknown and so it is simply silly to be critical at this point. The current mess began under the Republicans, though of course the Dems contributed. Why then should Bush get off the hook in a film that deals with the current debacle? This is called history.
Hollywood has made films about Lincoln, WWII, WWI, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, the A-Bomb, spies, and on and on--there really is no conspiracy to show America in a bad light but rather to make a film that makes money and perhaps has artistic merit.
Hey. Don;'t like N.Y. Times don't read; don't like Hollywood films, don't watch them.
Dr Helen,
Any way you could make the titles of your posts clickable as hotlinks? I can't find any way to view individual posts.
@fred
Actually the current mess began under Democrats. According to the NY Times in September 1999, the Clinton Administration pressued Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into Sub Prime mortgages. But in any case, Bush didn't do anything about it. Both parties are responsible, and to answer your question, I don't think Bush should get a pass. But I don't think the media and hollywood should cherry pick blame based on their biases either.
Hollywood may be in it to make money, but do not underestimate thier (or anyone on either side's) willingness to sacrifice a little dough for their beliefs.
Hollywood is following newspapers down the rabbit hole into bankruptcy and irrelevance. No one knows why they are going there, no one cares. Good riddance to the lot of them. They will not receive a nickle (or $20 as is the going rate it seems) for a view of their junk. Their stupidity only lends to their ludicrousy.
If I want something of theirs, I will buy it from China for... nothing. Because the Chinese are such a poor thieves, I can download it for zip. However, what I have seen paid or not makes my interest less than zero. I won't even bother getting propaganda for free, thank you.
the history of the debacle is already being recorded and clearly both parties bear the blame for massive deregulations that have led to the sorry state we currently are now in. To merely blame two govt agencies--Fannies) is simply trying to blame one of the two parties and simply does not account for the failure.
Many actors are clearly liberals--the majority of show b usiness people are. But films are made to sell because they require huge investments. Can you show me a number of films made for liberal propaganda purposes that were made without a concern for the business end of things?
I do not go to films to get information of history or news or political science. I go for entertainment.
@fred said... "To merely blame two govt agencies--Fannies) is simply trying to blame one of the two parties and simply does not account for the failure"
I blame both parties, and Fannie/Freddie are just two examples, and they are huge ones. The bigger overall problem is we have been spending our way into oblivion. Even when we bragged about "surpluses" we were still in debt up to our eyeballs and incurred more future obligations than our descendants could afford. Both parties and most people contributed, and the current president, who I voted for, was highly fiscally irresponsible.
@fred said... "Can you show me a number of films made for liberal propaganda purposes that were made without a concern for the business end of things?"
Redacted was made with the sole purpose of turning public opinion against the war, according to those making it. Rendition was made just to make America look bad, as was Farenheit 9/11. I won't even comment on W.
I'm not saying hollywood does not care about profit. I'm simply saying that they will sacrifice some profit to promote their beliefs, which is not the same as sying they have no concern for the business end of things.
This is not uncommon, I wouldn't sacrifice my values for the dollar, but I wouldn't work for free either--those are not mutually exclusive. If I had a choice between working for something I believed in, or taking a huge pay increase for something that went against my values, I'd take the lower-paying endeavor, but that doesn't mean I'd do it without pay.
Have a great Monday.
Does anyone else besides me watch E! Entertainment Television? I stare at that channel and think, "Who are these people they are talking about?" I don't go to the movies, I can't sit still through a half hour sitcom anymore, so I don't waste my money. But I do enjoy looking at the pretty people on E!, every 6 months they get replaced by a new group of pretty people. I don't understand why the people who star in the movies don't look like the people I see every day in real life. I really don't give a hoot what Hollywood does or doesn't do
Rendition refers to what in fact is a reality about water boarding--you may app[rove of it; many do not and it is after all against international laws. McCain did not approve of it. As for our use of third party places for torture: this is well established and thus not something Hollywood making up. In sum: you do not want Hollywood to deal with a truth that you approve of but that many do not.
Farenheit 90/11 made by Mick Moore and lord knows he has an agenda and is not mainstream Hollywood producer but an independent.
Dr. Helen...and anyone else who wants to see a good, pro-business movie:
Watch "Executive Suite." It was made in 1954, and starred William Holden, June Allyson, Barbara Stanwyck, and Fredric March. It's a top-notch movie.
For something on the action side, watch "Deadline, U.S.A.," made in 1952 and starring Humphrey Bogart. It has some good lines in it.
For some good pro-freedom and pro-America films, watch "This Land is Mine" (1943) or "Ruggles of Red Gap"(1935), both starring Charles Laughton. Excellent movies.
Bush warned about the Fannie/Freddie debacle in early part of the decade. Barney Frank was instrumental in halting the reform. McCain warned in 2005. If there were any Republican responsible for this mess, his or her corpse would still be hanging on a cross on Pennsylvania Avenue.
You can "warn" until you are blue in the face. Bottom line, nobody did anything about it, Republicans or Democrats. The economy was singing and that was all they cared about.
Captain Cornelius if you click on the time posted, i.e. "posted by Helen at 1:36 PM", it will show only the individual post with comments.
I agree with the comment above by Cham. But this is off topic. Hollywood makes films to make money. If the arguement is that they make many anti-American films, then all I have seen noted thus far is Rendition and a film by a non-Hollywood independent film maker. One film does not a case make! Seems that if a film shows things that might not be what they should be in America or in our history, then Hollywood is anti-Am erica. Does that mean that tv, books etc should only be allowed to say things that make America look good and avoid those things we might have done that reveal our weaknesses or mistakes?
Every movie regarding the Iragi war has been anti war, and they've all lost money. Good luck with that arguement Fred, if you keep repeating I'm sure someone will think it is fact.
dear 56: why so snippy?
all war films of late have lost money or not done very well, including Spike Lee and Clint Eastwood...and those were NOT anti-American films by any stretch of the imagination. Marley on the other hand is making a bundle. What does that then tell us ?
that Hollywood continues to make anti_Amricans films or that Americans simply do not want to see war films.
fred @2:45 PM, December 29, 2008,
Actually, there have been a number of films just about the Iraq War that cast the US in a bad light. Let's see...
In the Valley of Elah - Anti-US
Stop-Loss - Anti-US
Home of the Brave - Anti-US
If we want to expand it to include Afghanistan (I thought liberals supported that one) we can add
Lions for Lambs - Anti-US
Stop Loss? a true depiction of PTSD. I have a friend who is going back again and again to VA for PTSD from Viet Nam. And I know two others, at least. Those films depict what is...do you expect them to say just nice things about war? I can list every film ever made about war and unless it show war as it is, then you will object that it makes Am3erica look bad! Ever served?
"Ever served?"
Yes, in multiple theaters and in the GWOT. I thought Stop Loss was an anti-American POS movie.
It is propaganda; a selective presentation of facts. Like all good lies, it has a grain of truth.
Yes, the point of Hollywood is to make money vis-a-vis movies. Unfortunately, it is run by far too many people with egos the size of Texas and with axes to grind. They also don't like being seen as being commercial--it doesn't go over well with the glitterati and their liberal friends (who stick up their noses at anything "popular") I've been continually amazed at how contemptuous the Hollywood crowd is of producers and actors with solid track records of profitability.
(My latest beef isn't with anti-American films, but the number of shitty films I've rented lately, all of which were lauded and did well at the box office.)
a film is a film and it is not unusual to find that it does not address truthfully all things. However, what remains in the film? Fact: stop loss a real programn to bring back those who served once or twice or even more times. Fact: many suffered PTSD...beyond that, the story overwrought and a bit unreal. But it is not anti-American and in fact, is in part a plea for taking care of those who have returned and in great need of help. I can not address your background but I have some experience with PTSD and those from a few wars who suffer and continue to suffer from this...the Am govt has simply not done enough in this area as any reading of funding can show you.
“a film is a film and it is not unusual to find that it does not address truthfully all things. However, what remains in the film? Fact: stop loss a real programn to bring back those who served once or twice or even more times.”
Here's a fact: The stop loss policy is nothing new, and not unique to the GWOT. This is like saying that you are appalled to discover that people die in combat. That is not exactly a stunning piece of news.
“But it is not anti-American and in fact, is in part a plea for taking care of those who have returned and in great need of help.”
Propaganda frequently uses appeal to emotion to persuade an audience.
“I can not address your background...”
USMC, combat veteran, including service in Iraq during OIF2. I will not bore you with my entire CV. What is your military background and combat experience, if I may ask?
“...but I have some experience with PTSD and those from a few wars who suffer and continue to suffer from this...”
So what? Me too. Bad things happen in war. Troops suffer. Who knew? To be frank, I was more stressed out from dealing with bureaucratic micromanagement and incompetent leadership than I was from fighting the bad guys.
“...the Am govt has simply not done enough in this area as any reading of funding can show you.”
The US military has made an extraordinary effort in taking PTSD seriously, probably more now than ever before in history. I am sorry, but your statements don't ring true to me, and the movie didn't strike me as being particularly honest or accurate either.
I don't want to get sidetracked here, but I have a few comments regarding the topic of PTSD, based on my personal experience and research.
The best way to handle serious PTSD problems is to avoid them (as much as possible) in the first place, through training. In my experience, most of the people I have encountered that had the most significant PTSD issues were the ones who were the least prepared for combat with regards to training and experience, in both mindset and tactics. You want to reduce PTSD issues? Instead of throwing more money at treatment, put it towards prevention (extensive, proper combat training). You can't eliminate stress, you have to learn to deal with it and one of the best ways to do that is to be prepared for the inevitable requirements of combat, both physical and psychological. Think about that the next time you read about people complaining that the jets flying over their neighborhoods are too loud, or the ammunition the troops are training with isn't environmentally sound, or troops are conducting urban training in their neighborhoods, etc, etc.
PS: I want to wish everyone here a safe and happy New Year's Eve.
Words Twice,
Wise comments, thanks. And Happy New Year to you.
会社設立不動産渋谷区 賃貸グループウェアシステム開発サーバー管理網頁設計探偵浮気調査コンタクトレンズ腰痛矯正歯科インプラント電報ショッピング枠 現金化クレジットカード 現金化
クレジットカード 現金化ジュエリーおまとめローン格安航空券国内格安航空券債務整理多重債務債務整理育毛剤育毛剤薬剤師 求人電話占いワンクリック詐欺葬儀 千葉カラーコンタクトフランチャイズフランチャイズ留学幼児教室個別指導塾経営雑誌経済雑誌初音ミク似顔絵ウェルカムボードCrazyTalkCloneDVDCloneCD名刺作成クレージートークフロアコーティング 川崎フロアコーティング治験
Post a Comment
<< Home