Hollywood to America: "You're Too Stupid!"

Published on March 6, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

I actually like George Clooney as an actor. Even though I haven't seen the movie "Good Night and Good Luck", I appreciate Clooney's bringing the compelling story to the big screen. While I have NO desire to see "Syriana", I can respect Clooney's asking hard questions about current events, even if I wholly disagree with his conclusions.

What I CAN'T accept is Clooney's condescension towards the American public. He appreciates being "out of touch", and rightly points out that Hattie McDaniel's Oscar came at a time when segregation was still the norm in America. By doing so, he makes the obvious implication that current leftist agendas are morally comparable, and that those of us who do not agree are backwards, unenlightened, and/or morally inferior. We are, in other words, too stupid to think for ourselves.

In a year that saw a larger ticket sale drop than anytime in the last 25 years (1980 being the year of "Xanadu" and "The Blue Lagoon"), it is interesting that Hollywood activists would choose such a self destructive career path. While it is not improper to ask that we as a society allow others to live their lives as they choose, it is wholly unacceptable to repeatedly attempt to indocrinate us into the belief that such lifestyle choices are moral, decent, or normal. And yet producers continue to do just that on a regular basis by implicitly stating that we are too stupid to make such decisions without their assistance/input.

George Clooney may not be a spokesperson for all of Hollywood. But if Hollywood doesn't want their image cast by the likes of Clooney, I would suggest that a roll of duct tape over his mouth might be in order. But I'm guessing by the applause and acclaim that he perpetually receives, Hollywood DOES want him as their spokesman. And I'm further guessing that such decisions will further affect their box office intake.

Industry analysts will point to the home theater system as the reason for the decline in movie attendance. And it might well be a part of it. But I suggest that a larger part is a viewing public who is sick of the continual insults to their intelligence.

Comments (Page 3)

Gideon MacLeish

on Mar 07, 2006

Any particular reason why?

For the same reason I don't intend to see the Turkish film "Valley of the Wolves". If people want to make propaganda, fine, so be it. But I don't intend to watch it.

"Good Night and Good Luck" has historical merit, at least.

Gideon MacLeish

on Mar 07, 2006

I just fail to see any relation between Hollywood activism and Box Office numbers as Gideon implies

Let's break this down, shall we:

"King Kong", although it underperformed, pulled in over $200 million domestically. It was entertaining, not political. "The Chronicles of Narnia" pulled in about $300 million domestically. It was entertaining, not political. "Good Night and Good Luck" pulled in $31 million domestic. It was political. "Walk the Line" pulled in $118 million. It was not political. "Syriana" pulled in $49 million. It was political. "Brokeback Mountain" was by far the most successful of the political movies, pulling in nearly $80 million, roughly 2/3 the take of the LOWEST of my non-political examples. You can trust in your holy gods of pollsters all you want, but I think the facts speak otherwise. Could it be that maybe because politics weren't stated as a reason it wasn't at the forefront of people's minds?

Gideon MacLeish

on Mar 07, 2006

I can't make the same case for a lot of other actors, but in general, Clooney has done some great movies;

Davad,

We agree, at least, on Clooney's acting ability. I like Clooney, we're just politically at odds.

Ionolast

on Mar 07, 2006

If I want to be entertained, I tune in to people who entertain for a living. If I want politics, I tune in to people who do that for a living.

It's all entertainment.

davad70

on Mar 07, 2006

You can trust in your holy gods of pollsters all you want, but I think the facts speak otherwise.

Those figures you quote are indeed facts. However, you can't compare King Kong and Chronicles of Narnia to those movies based solely on their grosses. The movies that you listed were not marketed as, or expected to be huge box office hits. These aren't movies that appeal to kids or teenagers, as Kong and Narnia were.

There were a lot of quality movies this year that didn't do huge numbers and they didn't have "political" themes.

Gideon MacLeish

on Mar 07, 2006

These aren't movies that appeal to kids or teenagers, as Kong and Narnia were.

And that's part of the problem, davad. When people go to a movie, they go to be entertained, not indoctrinated, and the movies that entertained were in relatively short supply this year.

I do believe Hollywood's box office numbers will continue to decline as the quality of home entertainment increases. But I also believe that if they want to retain the market of their faithful movie goers, they should rethink some of their production choices. Even "Good Night and Good Luck", a movie I desperately want to see, is a movie that most moviegoers aren't inclined to pick out when "Big Momma vs. Medeia" is an alternative choice.

historyishere

on Mar 07, 2006

Brokeback Mountain cost 13 million dollars to make and has made 130 million worldwide- 10X the investment
Good Night and Good Luck cost 7 million, and has made 42 million- 6 times the investment

King Kong cost 207 million to make, and pulled in 216 domestically(538 worldwide)= twice the investment.
Narnia cost 210 and made 266 domestically(668 worldwide)- three times the investment.

While it is true that these movies with political agendas made less money, they also cost a lot less too. They are a lower financial risk generally speaking than the blockbusters, because lets face it, if they flop, you lose less than when something like Stealth or The adventures of Pluto Nash goes down in flames, studios end up eating hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.

A more apt comparison would have been between similarly budgeted titles rather than blockbusters vs. smaller films(because that's what the three films you are mentioning are.)

Illegal Immigrant: I don't think anyone really says to themselves, I want to go and watch a shitty, suckass movie. People generally want to see good movies, and I don't mean that in an elitist way(I am not saying everyone wants to watch "film"). I am not saying that everything has to have a message... but it should at least be competent. Your mentioning of Seinfeld is something I have to discuss. I think you misunderstood what I meant. Seinfeld is a well-written, decently acted show with plots that actually go somewhere. It's good. I am not asking for opera here. I am saying that the American public should say no to movies directed by Uwe Boll and the like. I don't expect a masterpiece every time I watch a movie, but it is a reasonable expectation that something that a studio is investing so much money into is at least somewhat worth the costs, but sadly this isn't the case. Even if the sole reason you are making a movie is to entertain, you should at least excel at doing that. For 250 million dollars, it should be the best damn movie I've ever seen.

Jilluser: We all use the platform that we are afforded to talk about the things that we find important. I mean, even at this modest level we all do it. Gideon's doing it, I'm doing it, you are doing it. To say that after you reach a certain level of reach you should automatically stop doing that is perhaps an unrealistic standard. It is part of who we all are as human beings.

Gideon MacLeish

on Mar 07, 2006

While it is true that these movies with political agendas made less money, they also cost a lot less too.

All of the movies I cited, though, were HEAVILY promoted in the media. While "Brokeback" made ten times its investments, it heavily underperformed its expectations, despite heavy media promotion, an almost browbeating attitude from supporters, and a dishonest distribution that saw it released in markets where it was guaranteed success to prop up its numbers.

I don't have anything against "Brokeback Mountain", per se. My understanding is that it's a well made movie despite being somewhat offensive to most heterosexual males. If they want to make it, make it. Just don't look down your nose and tell us how you're the enlightened ones leading us stupid peasants down the path to enlightenment.

MasonM

on Mar 07, 2006

Personally, I think that anyone who is influenced by the statements of any actor is in fact stupid. Enjoy their acting; their product. Just remember, at the end of the day they're just people who's opinion is no more or less important or valid than yours or mine. Hell, most of the entertainers I have met over the years we babbling idiots anyway.

singrdave

on Mar 07, 2006

Sorry to go off topic:

How about Return of the King? That made a gazillion dollars, won Best Picture, and was a Christian/WWII allegory.

Hmm...I dunno...I never made that connection.

I think it was simply the third book of the trilogy. Just like The Two Towers was not a reference to 9-11.

Sorry, I was thinking of "Narnia", but in looking it up I found a wonderful examination of Christian overtones in LOTR...

If the study of literature shows nothing else, it shows that every author, consciously or subconsciously, creates his (or her) work after his (or her) own world view. Tolkien is no exception. "I am a Christian..." he writes, and his books show it. Christianity appears in The Lord of the Rings not as allegory--Tolkien despises that--nor as analogy, but as deep undergirding presuppositions, similarities of pattern, and shared symbols.

That there should be similarities between the presuppositions of of The Lord of the Rings and Tolkien's Catholic faith is to be expected given Tolkien's views on Christianity and myth. Regarding the gospel story Tolkien wrote, "The gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essences of fairy-stories.

singrdave

on Mar 07, 2006

Personally, I think that anyone who is influenced by the statements of any actor is in fact stupid.

Ahh, there's the answer. There are many stupid people out there who actually look to vocal celebrities as role models.

davad70

on Mar 07, 2006

And that's part of the problem, davad. When people go to a movie, they go to be entertained, not indoctrinated, and the movies that entertained were in relatively short supply this year.

Idoctrinated? Come on, you really exaggerating.

I found all the smaller films you listed (except for BB Mountain, didn't see it) very entertaining. Would my kids have found them entertaining? Not hardly. I didn't feel "indoctrinated" by any movie I saw this year. I was entertained by some, bored by others. Some of the movies I found entertaining, others would not. Are you saying that all movies should be entertaining in the same vein as Big Momma's House, or The Pacifier and appeal to everyone?

Gideon MacLeish

on Mar 07, 2006

Are you saying that all movies should be entertaining in the same vein as Big Momma's House, or The Pacifier and appeal to everyone?

no, davad, I'm not. In fact, while I have no inclination to see Syriana, I will defend its production. It's just that if Hollywood focuses its efforts on these sorts of films they can expect their box office revenues to continue to drop. They're too demographic specific.

Frankly, I don't go to the movies because it's a 45 minute drive, and because Hollywood shows very little interest in putting out movies that my children and I can enjoy at the same time.

Dr Guy

on Mar 07, 2006

Personally, I think that anyone who is influenced by the statements of any actor is in fact stupid.

Ahh, there's the answer. There are many stupid people out there who actually look to vocal celebrities as role models.

Funny how most of them appear to be democrats.

historyishere

on Mar 07, 2006

And I am arguing that it is the Big Momma's Houses and Pacifier-type movies that are killing Hollywood, not Syriana and Brokeback Mountain, just as Britney et al are killing the music industry in the long run.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!