Today's movies can't measure up to those which actually reflected American values, because their makers simply don't share them.
It's not often that I write a column in answer to feedback from a previous one, but last week's piece on Hollywood generated a great deal of criticism. And surprisingly, much of it came from self-professed conservatives; younger Tea Party types it seems, who I hoped would have gotten the point. And that point is, to take America back, we must concentrate, not only on the body politic, but also on the restoration of our culture. We can't allow Hollywood to shape the views and values of future Americans. John Adams cannot be quoted enough on this: "Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."
To set the record straight, I never said that there are no good movies today, or that all movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood were great; I merely posited the theory that most of the movies made then could or would not be made today. Why? Is it because modern viewers would be bored by movies devoid of flashy animated special effects, filthy language and nearly non-stop sex and violence? Would today's audiences be turned off by witty and well written dialogue or plots and characters that are reflective of their values and belief in the goodness of America? No, that's not the reason, and statistics back this up.
Of the 100 top grossing movies of all time adjusted for inflation by Box Office Mojo, 54 were made before 1980. Of the 46 made in the last three decades, 35 were either children's movies or fantasy/comic book fare. Of the remaining eleven, four of these were comedies, meaning that only seven of America's 100 top grossing movies were of the brooding, depressing nature that Hollywood insists on shoving down our collective throats today.
So how do they continue to survive this way? Simple: the revenue from DVD sales of the movies people actually like covers the huge salaries and payoffs to those who make the films they believe define their "art." For every Little Mermaid with its animated cast they produce, there's that much more to dole out to American patriots like Johnny Depp and Sean Penn. But even the milk from that cash cow is drying up, and the sooner the better.
No, the problem is not with the majority of the movie-going public, it rests solely with the powers that be in Tinseltown. In almost every industry in America, the market determines the success or failure of the product. Not so in the entertainment field apparently, and it's not hard to figure out why. A culture is defined by its heroes, and Hollywood no longer believes in heroes as once defined by our national ethos. Allow me to once again demonstrate my point via celluloid.
Take the 1938 version of The Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn in the title role. Are there any among us who foresee a return to the days when Hollywood would portray women who not only desire the charm, good looks and virility of a man like Flynn's Robin, but . . . shudder . . . that they would also yearn for the chivalrous protection afforded by such a catch? And even more unlikely, could a modern screenplay produce a male character who would desire the pure, noble and chaste love of Olivia de Haviland's Maid Marian?
Now contrast that movie — a delight to the eyes, the ears and the heart — to the dreary 1991 version; the awful, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, starring the most miscast costume-drama actor of all time, Kevin Costner. What he did to he-man western heroes in Dances with Wolves, he does for the merry men of Sherwood Forest: induce great bouts of somnambulism. Even Roger Ebert called it, "a murky, unfocused, violent and depressing version of the classic story . . . totally lacking in the joy of living we associate with the character . . . the most depressing thing about the movie is that children will attend it expecting to have a good time."
And that's the thing; except for the aforementioned fantasy movies, there are hardly any good times to be had in today's multiplexes. Depressing and devoid of any true emotion save guilt and feminist triumphalism, mistaking schmaltz for joy and lust for romantic love, literally reducing male heroes to comic book caricatures; today's movies just can't measure up to those which actually reflected American values, because their makers simply don't share them.
So just say no to Hollywood's twisted view of America. Instead of plunking down a major chunk of your hard-earned money to sit in a theater and have your ears and your intelligence insulted, buy a nice bottle of wine, nuke some popcorn and romp through Sherwood Forest with the real Robin Hood, and pray for a return to the days when robbing from the rich to pay the poor only existed on the silver screen.
When I began reading this, I thought you were going to expand more on specifically what American values are and why Hollywood, being liberal, does not espouse what a conservative considers to be American values.
Since you didn’t, my comment: the same deterioration of culture and quality is happening (no, HAS HAPPENED) throughout the western world, and throughout the art world. Compare popular music today with Benny Goodman of the 1930′s (and onward) or compare musical theatre, comedy, cinema or music in Europe with what they produced seventy years ago. What a shock.
Of course nothing can stay the same. In earlier times the sensibility of a movie goer might have been more sophisticated and cultures in some ways (appreciation of male chivalry) and more naive in some (not questioning racial stereotypes). But we could learn tons from delving into our entertainment history, and that of other countries.
“Cultured” not “cultures.”
OK I found the comments at the American Spectator. May I speculate? Here’s your problem: you can’t harness today’s conservative movement to a cause like this. Today’s baby boomer conservative could just as well be Ted Nugent, a fiscal, small government conservative who has made a living escalating noise pollution to the stature of art. Today’s younger Tea Party conservatives are successful, mentally well adjusted go-getters who don’t see the need for much in the way of government entitlements. None of this has anything to do with taste in movies, traditional etiquette, great literature or art.
The battle has been lost.
You’d have more success reaching across the aisle. For example, I agree with you, but on other issues I’m too wishy-washy even to be a liberal.
In almost every industry in America, the market determines the success or failure of the product. Not so in the entertainment field apparently
This is a difficult case to make, all the more so if you examine the box office gross for some of the modern motion pictures full of the very content you describe – very few of them lose money. Hollywood is undoubtedly tilted heavily to the left politically, but culturally I’m not sure if America deviates from Hollywood as much as you think it does.
Ms. Fabrizio’s columns have some curious omissions. She doesn’t mention Clint Eastwood, for instance, especially the ‘Dirty Harry’ films. These make most conservative lists of favorite movies. Maybe she omitted Eastwood because of “Invictus,” which gloried Nelson Mandella, usually regarded as a dangerous leftist by conservatives.
A list of films appeared in “National Review” in 2009. In NR, John J. Miller writes: “Conservatives enjoy these films because they are great movies that offer compelling messages about freedom, families, patriotism, traditions, and more.” In order, the top 25 were: “The Lives of Others” (2007), “The Incredibles” (2004), “Metropolitan” (1990),”Forrest Gump” (1994), “300″ (2007), “Groundhog Day” (1993), “The Pursuit of Happiness” (2006), “Juno” (2007), “Blast from the Past” (1999), “Ghostbusters” (1984), “Lord of the Rings” (2001-2003), “The Dark Knight” (2008), “Braveheart” (1995), “A Simple Plan” (1998), “Red Dawn” (1984), “Master and Commander” (2003), “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” (2005),”The Edge” (1997), “We Were Soldiers” (2002), “Gattaca” (1997), “Heartbreak Ridge” (1986), “Brazil” (1985), “United 93″ (2006), “Team America: World Police” (2004), “Gran Torino” (2008). The runners up were:
Air Force One, Amazing Grace, An American Carol, Barcelona, Bella, Cinderella Man, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Hamburger Hill, The Hanoi Hilton, The Hunt for Red October, The Island, Knocked Up, The Last Days of Disco, The Lost City, Miracle, The Patriot, Rocky Balboa, Serenity, Stand and Deliver, Tears of the Sun, Thank You for Smoking, Three Kings, Tin Men, The Truman Show, Witness.
I think Ms. Fabrizio’s criteria for ‘conservative film’ may be too narrow. She rejects animated films, fantasies, etc., and I’ll bet she is uncomfortable with any of the films on the NR list that don’t conform to her own romantic sensibility. She’s basically making the case for nostalgia for the 1940s and before, which isn’t necessarily a case for conservative films. By the way, my daughters absolutely love Hollywood ‘screwball comedies’ of the 30s and Fred Astaire musicals. Since they are liberals, raised by liberal parents, how would a conservative explain that?
Hollywood has always had its share of liberals, for example Gregory Peck, Ed Asner. Many others were blacklisted in the McCarthy era.
But they basically make what sells.
She’s basically making the case for nostalgia for the 1940s and before
Precisely. Which makes it rather odd that you would spend 5 paragraphs dissecting a criteria for “conservative” films and compiling a list of National Review’s favorite movies for comparison, since nothing of the sort was mentioned in the original piece. The actual topic of the piece was the wildly different cultural views reflected in modern film when compared to classic film – not the political messaging in films by a particular director. Or put more simply, the change in aesthetic from, say, “Gone With the Wind” to “Howard the Duck”. Ms. Fabrizio believes, I think incorrectly, that this change in aesthetic is not reflective of American culture and values.
my daughters absolutely love Hollywood ‘screwball comedies’ of the 30s and Fred Astaire musicals. Since they are liberals, raised by liberal parents, how would a conservative explain that?
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? What the hell are you even talking about? Did you read ANY part of the original article before you posted?
Gestell, it must be that your daughters are only pretending to be liberal.
Gestell,
Read the column again. The pitch is that movies can be made minus “flashy animated special effects, filthy language and nearly non-stop sex and violence.” She likes movies that are strong on story and can engage an audience.
The mindless comedies, animated and action blockbusters aside, a lot of what’s coming out of Hollywood is overwrought explorations of some writer’s, actor’s or director’s angst over the human condition. Her contention is that these boorish personal works are being funded by the more marketable clownish releases.
Her plea is not a lot different than critiques of modern comedians, who seem to believe strings of profanity qualify as comedy.
I’m not opposed to profanity, violence and sex in movies, but they are better used as punctuation, rather than a substitute for a story.
“No Country for Old Men,” is a good recent example of this. “There Will be Blood,” from the same year, is another.
As for the political nature of what she is saying, there are undeniable parallels between the direction the country and entertainment are heading (though I can’t be sure which is leading the way) and it certainly is pie in the sky to think changing our movies will change our direction in any significant way.
Moral relativism is what we are flirting with at this particular place in history, as if the Greeks and Romans have not provided all we need to know about where that road goes.
Progressives are at fault, because everything they have not personally experienced is new and full of possibilities. History began for them when they pushed the “start-now” button. It’s sort of the way teenagers think.
Those progressives smart enough to recognize history’s lessons, ignore them on the belief “it will be different – this time.”
A must-watch that a lot of people never heard of is “Idiocracy.” It wasn’t a good movie at all, but is a humorous look at the dumbing down of humanity, and a look at where Lisa Fabrizio would likely argue we are heading.
Patrick Mulligan seems to believe that there are important differences between “cultural” and “political” meanings. I’m not as sure as he may be that the differences are clear-cut. Many conservatives have been fighting the ‘culture wars’ for a long time now. However, “nostalgia” isn’t really the same thing as “conservative,” so perhaps Ms. Fabrizio doesn’t want her piece to be a contribution to conservative aesthetics.
Is it that, as Nick Adams says, moral relativism is behind the parallel decline in values and the quality of art? Here’s Groucho Marx complaining about vulgar entertainment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3zmcg0VOk0
Not really a conservative, was he?
Or Steve Allen, the atheist: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1696&dat=19970615&id=bfcaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0UcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3858,2157283
Not much of a moral absolutist. How about progressive Tipper Gore vs. Frank Zappa?
So conservatives don’t have a monopoly on this gripe. I suspect that many of the tea party conservatives who didn’t rally around Ms. Fabrizio’s previous article are consumers of the modern day stand up comedy that she and I hate.
There just isn’t a relationship between belief in the goodness of America and the propensity to seek out intelligent entertainment. Maybe P. J. O’Rourke is right:
“America wasn’t founded so that we could all be better. America was founded so we could all be anything we damned well pleased.”
I find it interesting that the demise of decent movies began with the very liberal Supreme Court under Earl Warren. Just sit back and look at how our morals and culture have slid downhill since then. The big one, abortion, is America’s greatest sin and what with this attitude towards life and immorality it follows that the leeches in Hollywood would make the trash that they make today. It is never too late to turn a wagon around but that wagon must be exposed for what it is.
I think the advent of the birth control pill had as much if not more to do with changes in attitudes about sexual behavior. But aren’t we talking about two different things? One is
America becoming more permissive about sex. The other is the amateurization of the film industry and the dumbing down of many types of entertainment.
aren’t we talking about two different things? One is
America becoming more permissive about sex. The other is the amateurization of the film industry and the dumbing down of many types of entertainment.
Are they in fact two different things? Did the permissive and more morally relativistic culture give rise to the vulgarization of film? Or did the vulgarization of film give rise to the permissive and morally relativistic culture? Ms. Fabrizio is making the case that the culture and the entertainment are not, in fact, two different things. Which leaves us with the aforementioned chicken and egg conundrum, with Lisa taking the latter view – that the vulgarization of film has given rise to a more permissive and morally relativistic culture. In fact, she proposes that the vulgarization of film has outpaced that of the culture to the extent that it does not reflect mainstream American mores. That’s where I disagree. The numbers simply do not tell that story. Despite Ms. Fabrizio’s contention, I find little evidence to support the argument that film studios are bankrolling gratuitously violent and sexual flicks that are short on substance and long on socially and politically liberal messaging off the backs of wholesome family entertainment. Like it or not, there is a market, and not by any means a small one, for sensationalist fluff.
Patrick,
Well said. The question that may present itself now is, “who consumes the most of the dumbed down, sensationalist entertainment these days”, liberals, conservatives, people like me who are either too neurotic or too creatively confused to be either, or people who are too dull and witless to be interested?
The “moral relativism” comment by vance reminds me of Andy Rooney’s definition of democrats and republicans: “democrats love television, and watch a lot of it. Republicans hate television. They watch a lot of it too.”
As far as consuming gratuitously sexual and dumbed down entertainment, and pornography addicted men, and people who can’t restrain themselves from extramarital sex against their better judgment, I posit that there is no evidence than one political party does the majority of it. A liberal will be inclined to reflect thusly, “yes these things are prevalent, for whatever reason.” Whereas a conservative gets mad. Who’s making more progress at self-improvement? Don’t ask me.
Patrick M.,
Just a little observation on yours and other comments. If Fabrizio’s numbers are correct, I assume they are, that only 7 of the top 100 movies were of the brooding, depressive manner then I haves to ask myself this question. Since the movie industry is on the surface assumed to be in it for the profit, then why would they continue to push the brooding, depressive agenda? Is it just a happenstance? I for one doubt it. I think the people in Hollywood that call these shots are reflecting their values. That it is opposite the values of most of America matters little to them. When the Supreme Court could not identity pornography except by knowing it when they saw it, the Court gave them the freedom to do as they pleased. In a debate arena this is correct but in the everyday lives of most Americans I doubt that they were pleased with this ruling. There just some things that one’s trick knee should overrule such rulings. Does it step on someone’s toes? Yes, but there are times when such common sense is needed. What is common sense you ask, it is when there an overwhelming attitude of Americans. We as a huge majority should not be ruled by some ethereal debate but by common sense. The Hollywood film industry is but one of many areas that the Supreme Court has erred.
hvance,
You didn’t ask me, but…
Don’t you agree that the article cited by the author showed how star actors and directors are making off with the loot by taking a percentage of the gross rather than a percentage of the profit, at a time when DVD sales turned out to be lower than expected? Combined effect is loss of revenue. But that doesn’t mean that those seven movies are not hugely popular. So it doesn’t go very far in supporting the theory that if Hollywood made movies reflecting more “traditional” American values (or simply with more depth) then they would be still more popular.
And if there’s really a void in products available that match the public taste, why wouldn’t someone be filling it?
Re: ” When the Supreme Court could not identity pornography except by knowing it when they saw it, the Court gave them the freedom to do as they pleased. In a debate arena this is correct but in the everyday lives of most Americans I doubt that they were pleased with this ruling. There just some things that one’s trick knee should overrule such rulings.”
First, I think pornography actually is very popular. But even if it isn’t, there’s nothing in the constitution about your trick knee, nor about mine. As inspired as the constitution is, you can’t write a law that says when in doubt we’ll use common sense, can you? So we’re stuck with what we have.
Good questions.
As far as consuming gratuitously sexual and dumbed down entertainment, and pornography addicted men, and people who can’t restrain themselves from extramarital sex against their better judgment, I posit that there is no evidence than one political party does the majority of it.
I actually agree – that was what I was driving at. Going beyond the simple dichotomy of party lines, I think the same can be said of liberal, conservative, libertarian, libertine, or unaffiliated political philosophies, as well as other factors. Unless we are to suppose that 10% of the most politically liberal ideologues in the country are not only writing and producing but also going to the theater and paying $15 a ticket to watch 90% of the movies, I can’t justify the position that the vulgarization of Hollywood has taken place in a vacuum, to the objection of most Americans.
If Fabrizio’s numbers are correct, I assume they are, that only 7 of the top 100 movies were of the brooding, depressive manner then I haves to ask myself this question. Since the movie industry is on the surface assumed to be in it for the profit, then why would they continue to push the brooding, depressive agenda?
I would ask the exact same question. I do not doubt the list Ms. Fabrizio posted of the top-grossing films of all time (the same films in nearly identical order appear on most similar lists of top grossing films, depending on how inflation is calculated), but I don’t think it serves as particularly good evidence of the conclusion she draws for a couple of reasons. For one, films created 40 and 50 years ago that have had multiple theatrical releases and achieved “classic” status have had a lot more opportunity to collect revenue. But more importantly than that, very few of the “brooding, depressive”, vulgar and shallow type of modern films that she argues offend the sensibilities of a vast majority of America actually lose money. People are seeing those movies – lots of people. Here’s a few good case studies:
“Borat” – an extremely ribald comedy film from a few years ago that could serve as the poster child for modern shock comedy, grossed $70 million dollars in the US and $260 million dollars worldwide (with an $18 million dollar budget).
“Scarface”, the 1983 prototype of the sensationalist action genre, complete with tables full of cocaine, gangsters with grenade launchers, severed body parts, and full frontal nudity, took in $45 million in 1983 dollars (about $55 million in today’s money) in the US (with a $25 million dollar budget).
John Carpenter’s “Halloween”, the 1978 prototype of the modern exploitative gore-and-nudity slasher flick, grossed $47 million 1978 dollars (about $115 million in today’s money) with a $550,000 budget. The 2007 remake took in $80 million dollars on a $15 million dollar budget.
“Syriana”, 2005′s middle finger to the greedy oil companies and the George W. Bush administration, grossed $94 million dollars, almost doubling it’s $50 million dollar budget.
I could go on ad infinitum, but I think that about covers the gamut: from low brow comedy, to machismo sensationalism, to exploitative sex and violence, to left wing political proselytizing. It’s hard for me to swallow the premise that these types of films are being made at a loss to satisfy the personal agendas of movie studio executives by draining the coffers filled by “Toy Story” and the 467th home-video release of “Ben-Hur” – that is demonstrably false. Like it or not, movie studios are churning out a product that America wants – or if it doesn’t want it, certainly spends a lot of money to purchase it. You may not like what that says about American culture, but you can’t pretend that these films are made in spite of American culture.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by IC Politics. IC Politics said: Return to Hollywood: Today's movies can't measure up to those which actually reflected American values, because th… http://bit.ly/bNpD6O [...]