Disney Count support may be spotty from here. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Same tired old arguments...

No Christian hoorays for Hollywood
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17866401%255E2702,00.html

"Hollywood (has) exposed its own corrupt agenda. (It) is no doubt out on a mission to homosexualise America."
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
January 18th, 2006
Do you doubt there is an agenda? I don't think Hollywood is out to "make people gay" but I certainly think that many filmmakers want to create an awareness and an acceptance of what they believe in. Thinking perhaps if they show real homosexual love more people will accept gay marriage. Just as Mel Gibson has an agenda that if more people see the Passion of the Christ they will become Christian, or Spielburg showing Schindlers list will have people become more aware of the holocaust etc... The movies are not being made to make money obviously.
Permalink Phil 
January 18th, 2006
I've noticed that "Christian groups" can generally be traced directly to Pat Robertson. He must pay through the nose for PR given how widely propagated it is and how ridiculous some of it is.
Permalink Colm 
January 18th, 2006
It's been a while since hollywood showed any significant signs of social responsibility. There are those who say that there is a new trend towards this kind of thing comming though. Could be nice.
Permalink Zoot 
January 18th, 2006
Of course Hollywood wants to gayify America. Gay people watch more movies than straight people do. They're expanding the market, intraneously.
Permalink Spinoza 
January 18th, 2006
Maybe the people in Hollywood, being mostly liberal, just LIKE the gay-themed movies. I doubt it's got anything to do with an agenda.
Permalink Dana 
January 18th, 2006
"Do you doubt there is an agenda?"

No, I guess I don't. Hollywood is rather liberal and socially aware -- so I don't doubt that they want to create awareness and acceptance of homosexuality.

However that is a long way from "pumping out anti-family movies with sexually explicit, twisted and perverse themes" I notice that Christian groups are pretty silent anti-family, sexually explicit, twisted and perverse movies like Hostel. Obviously the agenda is homophobia and has nothing to do with "family values"

"It's been a while since hollywood showed any significant signs of social responsibility."

One could argue that movies like Brokeback mountain are a sign of social reposibility.

My favourite quote from the article:
"'Once again, the media elites are proving that their pet projects are more important than profit,' Janice Crouse, of Concerned Women for America, said."
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
January 18th, 2006
Hollywood is out to make money. That is their only agenda. All other considerations are secondary at best.
Permalink Peter 
January 18th, 2006
Peter obviously didn't read the article...

"None of the three movies - Capote, Transamerica or Brokeback Mountain - is a box office hit. Brokeback Mountain has barely topped $US25million ($33million) in ticket sales."
Permalink Almost H. Anonymous 
January 18th, 2006
Although to be fair to Peter, Brokeback only had a $14 mil budget. But clearly the celebrity cast and directors would have had to take a pay cut from what they normally make to make this movie at that budget.
Permalink Phil 
January 18th, 2006
Gee, don't you think that every producer wants his/her/its movie to be a blockbuster? Just how many movies do you think could ever get funded if they didn't believe the movie was a blockbuster?

It is the public that decides if the movie is a "success" or not. Not some evil cabal, that, depending on the decade is condemned by the tinfoil hat crowd for being too heterosexual [1], jewish[2], communist[3], jewish[4], liberal[5], jewish or gay[6].

Notes:
1 - Back in the 20s, movies were seen as too (hetero)sexual. Leading to the Hays Code for movies. Complying with some of the rules is why many movies show husbands and wives in separate beds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code
2 - See Senator McCarthy's mouth foaming
3 - See Senator McCarthy's mouth foaming
4 - See Ronald Reagan's mouth foaming
5 - See Ronald Reagan's mouth foaming. Or Coulter's mouth foaming. Or Limbaugh's mouth foaming.
6 - See the "article" posted by the OP.
Permalink Peter 
January 18th, 2006
From another angle, what drives a story is adversity. And there is so little innate adversity left in modern America. A story about an interracial couple is no longer drama (Who's Coming to Dinner?), but comedy (Maid in Manhattan) if the interracial them even comes up in the plot.

With gayness, there's still a few drops of adversity to be squeezed out. Though not much - all three movies mentioned are outside today's mainstream gay experience. One is historical (it's always safe to find adversity in another time). One is not really gay-related at all (sexual identity disorders/changes are not about sexuality per se and are common themes in every culture - check out those Greek or Native American myths). And one is set in the most remote corner of American culture.

Gay adversity is fading away - young people know it, old people wanna jump on the bandwagon of next generation's morality and believe they have led the way. It's why Ang Lee says stupid shit like "the power of movies to change the way we're thinking" and believes it. He's following rather than leading the culture (unless he's restricting his change to just cowboys).

Once the integration of gay folks into society is complete, their lives will be as dull and un-movie-worthy as the next guy's. You can see the switch happening in younger film-makers' films like Tarnation - gayness wasn't the driving force of the movie, it was mental illness.
Permalink Spinoza 
January 18th, 2006
"Hollywood is out to make money. That is their only agenda. All other considerations are secondary at best."

Then explain Gilgi.
Permalink KC 
January 18th, 2006
Spinoza -

There are other themes. Man vs. society is only one. There is Man vs. Man, Man vs. Nature, and more.

Films are about more than just that one theme you discuss, although you make valid points.
Permalink sharkfish 
January 18th, 2006
My favorite movie theme is Man vs. Machine. Geek, I am.
Permalink sharkfish 
January 18th, 2006
Explain Gigli?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29151
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 18th, 2006
Now a movie about Alan Turing...that could be interesting, if done right. There you have a brilliant, multi-faceted character to work with, the drama of WWII to fuel some of the plot, and the persecution for being homosexual very well-documented. Hmmm...it might even be a cool twist to spring the gay thing only toward the end of the movie, AFTER the audience has formed its opinion on the man himself. The suicide would be so much more of a kick in the teeth that way.

Warner? Ever write a screenplay?
Permalink cubiclegrrl 
January 18th, 2006
I have seen a very good movie about Turing, just like you described it.

Not Hollywood, but Brittish though.
Permalink Erik Springelkamp 
January 18th, 2006
Erik: Dang. Late to the party as always... ;-) Would you mind sharing the title if you can think of it? Thanks.
Permalink cubiclegrrl 
January 18th, 2006
I would have done if I remembered. Saw it on BBC more than a year ago.
Permalink Erik Springelkamp 
January 18th, 2006
OK,

Breaking the Code,

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115749/
Permalink Erik Springelkamp 
January 18th, 2006
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115749/
Permalink Rick Tang 
January 18th, 2006
Thanks much, Erik! (You, too, Rick!)
Permalink cubiclegrrl 
January 18th, 2006
The vs in the themes stands for ad.vs.ity.

Ang Lee sorta realized how silly his statement was (let's forgive him his star-struck moment). It shouldn't be too much of a surprise that he's able to tell a story about the cruelties society's norms impose on the individual soul. He is from Taiwan after all (a one-party country till only a few years ago). His Taiwanese-themed films as well as Sense and Sensibilty (after Fukayama: before then end of history there were actual conflicts!) attest to it.

I think that it is the religious zealots and fundamentalists who feel they are in the minority and under adversity these days. There is some good material for narrative in that hornet's nest .
Permalink Spinoza 
January 18th, 2006
"I think that it is the religious zealots and fundamentalists who feel they are in the minority and under adversity these days. There is some good material for narrative in that hornet's nest ."

I thought M. Night Shyamalamealsonwheelsbigdickusthan sort of did that in that last film of his where the people were living in the woods. They could be fundamentalists, couldn't they?
Permalink sharkfish 
January 18th, 2006
Spinoza: I really think you nailed it there. I pretty much blame it on the whole "my victimhood can beat up your victimhood" one-upsmanship that sometimes passes itself off for legitimate civil rights agitation in America. Tell people to keep their religion to themselves (Example: taking the Ten Commandments off public, taxpayer-funded property) and you'd think that Christians were being fed to the lions feet-first, to judge by the screaming. It's just so lame, I can't believe that anybody falls for it. [Sigh.]
Permalink cubiclegrrl 
January 18th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics