Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 07/16/2006 6:46:55 PM PDT by Graybeard58
In his July 6 weekly newspaper column, Fox News talkmeister Bill O'Reilly wrote about "Superman and the Culture War." He pointed out, as I did last week, that in the movie "Superman Returns," the Perry White character asks about Superman, "Does he still stand for truth, justice and all that stuff?" O'Reilly asks right back, "And all that stuff?" The original line from the 1950s TV show was "truth, justice and the American way," and O'Reilly explains how the studio, Warner Bros., didn't "want to tee off any foreign viewers with pro-U.S. sentiment," so it excised "the American way."
Turns out Warners didn't cut the line, but the writers did, according to the Hollywood Reporter, a well-respected showbiz trade paper. Writers Dan Harris, Michael Dougherty and director Bryan Singer "never even considered including 'the American way' in their screenplay," wrote Hollywood Reporter columnist Tatiana Seigel. Not in their first draft, not ever. They "intentionally omitted what they considered to be a loaded and antiquated expression," Seigel reported.
O'Reilly's theory
Regardless of who kept "the American way" out of the movie, O'Reilly and Seigel both say that overseas box office was a concern. "Foreign sensibilities can no longer be ignored," Seigel wrote. Or as O'Reilly put it, "Some jihadist in Pakistan might throw popcorn at the screen."At this point I expected O'Reilly to use this little story to go on about liberal Hollywood. But always unpredictable, he instead tries to explain why America is so disliked overseas. It's because of the "anti-American press worldwide and here in the USA," he says.
I thought O'Reilly was going to segue from "Superman Returns" to these new documentaries getting a fair share of ink and TV time as further examples of liberal Hollywood. As I wrote a few weeks ago, documentaries are becoming the new hot thing out of Tinseltown, popular because they're far more interesting than most mainstream features.
And, many recent documentaries can be classified as left-leaning. Among them:
"Bowling for Columbine" (2002): Michael Moore's satiric examination of America's love of guns.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" (2004): Moore's monster hit exposing what he says is wrong with George W. Bush and the war against terror.
"An Inconvenient Truth" (2006): Al Gore's argument that global warming is here and how people are causing much of it.
"Inside Deep Throat" (2005), which ridicules censorship.
"The Road to Guantanamo" (2006), about three innocent Muslim teens from Britain visiting Pakistan at the wrong time. They end up in Guantanamo for three years before the Americans figure out they weren't terrorists.
"Supersize Me" (2004), which used straight-forward first-person reporting to make hamburger of the fast food industry.
"Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price" (2005): The title says it all.
"Who Killed the Electric Car?" (2006): A conspiracy by the auto and oil industries and the Bush administration, that's who.
"Why We Fight" (2006): Because the military-industrial complex does whatever it wants.
The funny thing is these pictures aren't made by Hollywood at all. The money to make documentaries almost always comes from outside the studio system, from independent producers and often the filmmakers themselves. Usually they have to scrounge it from a half-dozen or more sources, from investors, grants, family and friends.
After the picture's finished, the filmmakers try to get it shown in film festivals, especially Robert Redford's Sundance. That's where they hope to find distributors to put it in theaters, which is where the big studios (or their artsy subsidiaries) come in.
They buy the distribution rights for already made documentaries, hoping for a profit. The films may go to theaters, or play the college or other specialty circuit. Or go to cable and DVD. Distribution has its risks, as prints and advertising can cost more than the films. But even a modest documentary hit can be profitable.
The people who make these films believe in them. They believe in them so much they'll endure many sacrifices. You've heard of struggling actors. Well, there are plenty of struggling documentarians. They hang in because they're fascinated by the subjects they film, and they have a message to tell.
Why are they so often liberal messages?
I don't have an answer for that. Conservatives do have a legitimate gripe that Hollywood filmmakers' politics often lean to the left. But I have a gripe, too. Why don't conservatives get into the business?
Outside of such big names like Rupert Murdock (who runs the Fox movie, news and TV empire, worldwide satellite systems and the New York Post and Weekly Standard magazine) and actor-director-producer Mel Gibson, conservatives in Hollywood are rare. And even Murdock's entertainment properties have only one real political bent -- to make money. Otherwise, few conservatives go into "the cultural industries."I have a big gripe against liberals, too.
They mouth off their philosophies, but they don't run for office. What kind of cowards are they? If Republicans like song and dance man George Murphy, actors Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger and singer Sony Bono can become politicians, why can't Hollywood liberals?
If Hollywood is too liberal, maybe in part it's conservatives' fault. And if Congress is too conservative, maybe L.A. liberals are also, in part, to blame?
Do you think Bill O'Reilly might say something like that?
ive been asking the same thigg for years. they always bitch about liberal hollywood, liberal media, and liberal schools but they never do anything about it. They dont go to journalism school they dont make docs or write convientional scripts they rarly run for the school board and when they get a majority in congress and the senate and white house the not only dont abolish the nea they increase the budget 100 percent and put ted the swimmer in charge of writing the education bill which leads to the no child left behind act. conservatives need to bitch less and do more as far as im concerned.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
You overestimate the power of movies. If they are so influential, we would have had democrat rule for the past 30 years. But this is clearly not the case. Starting from the Nixon years, which is when ho-wood became overtly leftist, Republicans have won 7 out of the last 10 elections.
In other words, leftist ho-wood was only able to garner a .300 batting average in its anti-Republican, pro-dim propaganda. Batting .300 is good for baseball hitters, but it is dismal for political propagandists.
Why dont' conservatives get into the business?
Remember Gibsons "Passion of the Christ"?
Millions upon millions went to see that movie, and the MSM only gave it a passing mention - and that only when absolutely forced.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.
Thanks for the ping!
Maybe they don't do it because they know that no matter how good their film is, it won't get a distribution deal, which any big load of liberal crap will. "Michael Moore Hates America" was a terrific documentary on every level that even got two thumbs-up from Ebert and Roeper, but did it ever get the type of distribution that one of Moore's lying pieces of propaganda gets? I only got to see it because I was at the world premiere at a conservative film festival in Dallas, but I never saw it play anywhere again. If it did, then it must've been on some art house screen for a week because I was looking for it and never saw it.
Conservatives ARE getting in the game.
http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8687
There are several more articles to read as well.
"Starting from the Nixon years, which is when ho-wood became overtly leftist.."
You're mistaken in this statement. Hollyweird was controlled by the left and the Commies leading up to WWII. The Leftists came from Europe early in the 20th Century and dominated Vaudeville, then as talkies began and Hollywood evolved they began to take control of the movie industry. Their European msg was that the enlightened European Left was just so much more sophisticated than the clods in the U.S. The elitists in the U.S. adored them and wanted to be just like the sophisticates from "across the pond."
Hollywood was dominated at that time by the Communist party and FDR asked/demanded that they begin making movies supporting the U.S. efforts to change the direction of the war in Europe. After WWII was over, Hollyweird began sliding back into their Leftie Hate America position.
This impacts all the way through high school and college. After college, while making films, only those projects that are in line with the liberal think of the studios get funding (the coveted 'green light').
There have been non-liberal documentaries (faren-hype 9-11) produced, but are not allowed into theatres. Just look at the reaction to 'the passion'.. liberals were just off the chart crazy about it. Image if a young film maker had tried to make that movie... he'd never work on a project again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.