Right fights back

Hollywood Reporter ^ | 06/07/05 | Paul Bond

[hang 'em]

Soon all actors will be replaced with computer graphics.

It won't be a problem then.

[Madeleine Ward]

Gelbart doesn't see an agenda. He probably doesn't.

But, there is a liberal worldview conveyed in these pictures. All you have to do is watch a few movies, and it won't take you long to see who the good characters are, and who are the villains. Even in the comedies, the villains ultimately see the error of their ways, and they convert.

If you haven't seen Meet the Fockers, that's a perfect example. Look who the film shows as the characters we should be sympathetic to: a couple who arranged and approved of the maid boinking their adolescent son. They thought it would be a good first experience for him.

The good presidents are always liberal, but the corrupt ones are conservative.

[Borges]

The good presidents are always liberal, but the corrupt ones are conservative.


My name is Bob Rumson...and I'm running for President!

[mnehring]

The good presidents are always liberal, but the corrupt ones are conservative.

Hmmmmm... My take on the recent presidents, ignoring current administrations because I know the left will roll their eyes.. lets look at the past few Presidents.

Clinton (D)- Corrupt
Bush Sr(R)- Clean, semi effective
Reagan(R)- Clean as a whistle, effective
Carter(R)- Inept, possibly corrupt, especially after he left office)
Ford(R)- Clean, ineffective
Nixon(R)- Corrupt, jury will always be out on if he was effective.
LBJ (D)- Corrupt, ineffective
Kennedy(D)- I'll say clean as most corruption charges surround conspiracy theories, effective
Eisenhower (R)- Clean, effective
Truman (D)- Clean, semi-effective (effective wartime, ineffective post war)

I would like to know what D's the left thinks are 'good' presidents and what (besides the obvious Nixon) the left think is corrupt...

[processing please hold]

"Bullshit!" Gelbart replies, when asked if liberals make things difficult for conservatives in Hollywood. "If you're not strong enough to support a Republican administration out loud, then you're a wimp."

"You make a radical Muslim mad, and he won't rip off your bumper sticker, he'll rip off your bumper -- then your car will be found in another state, and he'll put a fatwa on you," he says. "I think fearing for your life is a pretty good reason not to do it."

Sooooo, he's a whimp?

[Zhangliqun]

"When I watch movies I'm not looking for a political agenda, nor do I see one," Gelbart says.

But then again, fish don't look for water, nor do they see it.

[lowbridge]

"Bullshit!" Gelbart replies, when asked if liberals make things difficult for conservatives in Hollywood. "If you're not strong enough to support a Republican administration out loud, then you're a wimp."

snip

Gelbart does acknowledge a pet peeve expressed by Finefrock and many other Hollywood conservatives: No executive today is willing to greenlight a movie that portrays extreme Islamists as the enemy (though check out Fox's 1994 actioner "True Lies" to see none other than current California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger going head-to-head with crazed jihadists). But Gelbart believes that is a pragmatic decision having little to do with politics. "You make a radical Muslim mad, and he won't rip off your bumper sticker, he'll rip off your bumper -- then your car will be found in another state, and he'll put a fatwa on you," he says. "I think fearing for your life is a pretty good reason not to do it."

Gelbart the wimp.

[processing please hold]

Two great minds...we both caught it. :-)

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

No executive today is willing to greenlight a movie that portrays extreme Islamists as the enemy . . .

Gelbart believes that is a pragmatic decision having little to do with politics. "You make a radical Muslim mad, and he won't rip off your bumper sticker, he'll rip off your bumper -- then your car will be found in another state, and he'll put a fatwa on you," he says. "I think fearing for your life is a pretty good reason not to do it."

. . . Gelbart replies, when asked if liberals make things difficult for conservatives in Hollywood. "If you're not strong enough to support a Republican administration out loud, then you're a wimp."

Our "intrepid" Mr. Gelbart courageously cries "BS!" when conservatives complain of pressure - but then announces that when it comes to opposing someone who is actually dangerous, he is a conscientious objector - a devout coward. In that context, Mr. Gelbart, any negative insinuation against any religion that doesn't intimidate you is a half-truth. And a very big lie.

"List the artistic people on the left and those on the right, and compare their work: Those on the left are more creative."

Well, Mr. Gelbart, at least we know they aren't courageous. Maybe they are just more commercial. All it takes to be commercial is superficiality, negativity, and arrogance. Newspapers prove that every day.

[tumblindice]

Is the study of politics an art? Or a science.

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,947793,00.html

[CzarChasm]

an excellent point - no hesitation to denigrate the followers of truly peaceful religions; what courage!

[HHFi]

In claiming that liberals are more creative, Larry Gelbart states a fallacy rooted in arrogance and the fact that he lives in a liberal echo chamber. He and all his friends are liberals, and they know their work is better than anyone else's, so therefore, liberals must be more creative than anyone else. It's the same reason that liberals tend to believe liberal men are better in bed: they've repeated that canard for so many years in the liberal-owned media in hopes of convincing women of it. It's a phallic fallacy.

I happen to be a "creative" person (I've written advertising, TV, home video, two published books, and for the past 14 years, a daily radio comedy service). I know lots of other creative people who, like me, avoid Hollywood because they find the politics and lifestyle repulsive. We've just found other avenues for our creativity in more hospitable fields. It hardly means we are less creative than the cretins turning out the junk coming from Hollywood. If I thought my work weren't more creative than the cliche-ridden dreck in movie theaters (box office down for the 16th straight weekend and counting), the simplistic and ham-handed leftist twaddle I'm forced to sit through in live theaters as a local drama awards judge, or the garbage that pollutes most of our TV outlets ("Tonight on the Reality Channel: Paris Hilton eats a horse rectum!"), I'd just slit my wrists and get it over with.

BTW, if Gelbart calls Republicans wimps when they fear destroying their careers by supporting Bush out loud, then why does he think it's perfectly excusable pragmatism for Hollywood studios to be afraid to criticize Muslims out loud? Bit of hypocrisy there, Lar?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Gelbart traces the entertainment industry's liberal slant to something everyone in Hollywood can understand: economics. One can say what they will about the agenda behind "Carrie," "Footloose" or "Pretty Woman," but all of those movies scored at the boxoffice as few "conservative-oriented" films have.

In 1960, it was estimated that upwards of 90% of Americans went to the movies on a regular basis. By 1990, I believe that it had fallen to somewhere between 20% and 30% (these figures are from my fallible memory, so I could be wrong, but I believe that I'm in the ballpark here).

While movie prices going up through the roof has something to do with this, it might also be pointed out the style of the movies prior to the 60's was more family-oriented than the style of movies today.

[Qwinn]

""Bullshit!" Gelbart replies, when asked if liberals make things difficult for conservatives in Hollywood. "If you're not strong enough to support a Republican administration out loud, then you're a wimp.""

As opposed to those in Hollywood who supported Communism. If they did that out loud, they were "wimps" and "sellouts", and only by refusing to admit it would they be considered "heroes".

Qwinn

[WireAndWood]

"... he obviously didn't watch Footloose to the end where the Preacher is shown as a genuinely good person..."

In this movie - just like countless other examples of this standard lib pap - the big, bad conservative is shown to become a good and decent person only when they become enlightened to progressive/permissive/hedonistic non-values. They must see the 'error of their ways'.

The continually repeated message is that problems are caused by moral values. Problems are only solved through (and happiness is only created through) casting the values aside, and 'lightening up'.

[Borges]

If you equate having a High school dance as 'progressive/permissive/hedonistic non-values.' then you're correct. 'Footloose' was the Devil's work.

[Borges]

There is also much more competition for people's time and money these days then there was in the 40s when movie going was at an all time high.

[Borges]

I know lots of other creative people who, like me, avoid Hollywood because they find the politics and lifestyle repulsive.

This is exactly what I said earlier. Conservatives generally avoid the film making business to the detriment of the overall product. Contrary to what many people think, Hollywood isn't the only place in America that makes films. People like Kevin Smith and Richard Linklater have financed movies on their credit card.

[marty60]

Well maybe this is the way to make a difference. Who wants to suppost a bunch you KNOW is going to insult you. This group sounds like the answer. One giant success and all is well. Money will follow money. The start-up money is the problem. But that can be rectified by presenting a marketable project.

[Nyboe]

forget it, i've had it with Hollywood.

I say tax all profit above $1,000,000 on a movie at a 90% since the pinkos think the rich should be paying more anyway.