Pushback

Though the moguls might be hurt if "social conservatives had their way" , it seems to me that sexually tamer movies do better at the box office.

Looking at the top 10 grossing films worldwide (adjusted and unadjusted for inflation), only one (Titanic) contains nudity. I don't remember if it had a sex scene or not.

Is the pattern observed in the top 10 prevalent throughout the entire medium? Hard to say without some research... Good post by the way.

One fatal flaw in the hypothesis: "If social conservatives had their way and American culture was remade in the manner they advocate--Hollywood would take a beating."

Typing as a social conservative (and if I can speak for 'us'), "we" want the market to dictate what Hollywood sends out...we prefer the market, not our 'will' being implemented. It would be preferrable if society were less coarse (I think libs will agree on that one) but the problem isn't due to Hollywood making films, it's the national toleration of abhorrent behavior. Hey, the market has clearly spoken and family-friendly films do much better than the rated-R crap that Hollywood continues to churn out. Don't get me wrong, my favorite movie of all time is Diehard (not exactly the chosen flick of social conservative evangelicals, of which I'm a member....but I'm an adult in a free society, right?) but if Hollywood wants to continue to send out endless crap (we'll soon have "Ocean's 23" and "American Pie 9: the retirement party" if they don't wise up) then the market will adapt. Sadly, it appears that instead of Hollywood following the market, the void is being filled by 'conservative outlets' like Joel Surnow's new FNC show or Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ". It would be nice if Hollywood really followed the dollar, like it claims, but that's poppycock....George Clooney's propaganda flicks bomb yet they continue to be churned out. Instead, we're going to have a split in the entertainment industry with Hollywood 'values' being on one side & more family-friendly venues on the other. Remember, Stallone was turned down for years because the Hollywood crowd didn't think that "Rocky Balboa" the movie would sell....well, it's family friendly (as far as a boxing movie can be) with a great message and it's made a ton of cash.

People want entertainment and sadly, today's Hollywood films are more in line with their agendas (see: Munich, Syriana, , Good night & good luck, Bob Roberts) than meeting the 'demand' with the 'supply'. I don't care to spend money on George Clooney's political propaganda any more than I want to hear Rosie O'Donnell's diatribes......just act, sing or make me laugh. Sadly, they're under the assumption that people think they're famous for their intellect instead of their pretty faces or talents.

The void will be filled....it just probaby won't be by the Hollywood left, so they'll be out a lot of cash due to their own arrogance and dwindling national adoration (see: Cruise, Tom). The market always rules and it will, again. Depends if Geffen, Lear & co. want to follow the market or their politics. Hey, Michael Jordan is a far-left lib but he realized that Republicans buy shoes, too, & made the business decision NOT to jerk them around (something the hapless Dixie Chicks didn't consider) and he was rewarded by the market & not just some political entity like the Grammys.

Does anybody really believe that Terry Moran might be a conservative? The only place he might be considered conservative is Hollywood.

A thoughtful post.

Hollywood is still a part of America, regardless as to the "Hollywood vs the Heartland" diatribes thrown out by conservatives during election cycles. And like it or not, popular culture in America is still growing more liberal by the day. (Why do you think social conservatives are so hopping mad and screaming? They can see they're losing the so-called culture wars in a landslide).

Way back when you couldn't have a Will and Grace or a Brokeback Mountain. Now, gays are commonplace, the L word is a hit, and shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy are mass consumed. Why? Good stories sell. Period. And once the iron curtain of homophobia began to lift, ever so little, the flood of inventive, fresh, new movies and series was bound to flood out. We like new. We like fresh, edgy, gritty and in-your face.

We also like the underdog story; the outsider, the one who gets picked on, the one who is labeled as a deviant who somehow deals with their status and overcomes their obsticles.

In that vein, Christians aren't the poor abused minority they pretend to be so often in this country. They are the landed, the monied, the powerful. And often, they are the ones spewing hate and brimstone at others. So... they can't play the underdog and they are easily identified as the stiff, unbending villains in movies.

Storylines are naturally going to favor the minority not the so called "moral" majority.

Plus, there's the artist factor. The businessmen are interested in money and the directors and actors make it for them. Those directors and actors, on the cutting edge of society as artists, have more power now than ever before. The studios used to be in control. Not so much anymore. Directors and actors who by their nature learn to live in another person's skin, and look through their eyes, are going to learn not to judge others, not to condemn, not to cosign others to hell blithely, the same way our priests and ministers so often do. If Tom Cruise won't play a conservative gay hating, lesbian bashing, jerk, and Martin S. won't film it, then guess what... the film is less likely to get made. At all. Period.

Last, you forgot the minority factor. A lot of the money in hollywood is in the hands of an American minority; those of jewish descent. They are going to be more sensitive to telling certain stories that take minority feelings into consideration.

All of which is not to say that conservatives dont exist, from B Willis and Arnold S, to Mel Gibson. Or Dennis Miller, for that fact. Look. They are free to tell and sell their stories to the American public. But if we get a racially insensitive, gay bashing, lesbian trashing, anyone who doesn't believe like me is going to hell movie.... it's unlikely that America will embrace it. At all.

Trust me, if the money was flowing to the conservatives, the politicos in Washington and elsewhere would have no problem with Hollywood, at all. They'd beat their chest and take the political donations.

Don't forget; the same critics who cried about Hollywood violence attacked only liberals and left the Republicans, Bruce Willis and Arnold S., off their hit list for a reason.

In short: it's one-sided political hogwash. The marketplace is speaking and the marketplace of America, despite conservative whining and wailing, is more "give us Will and Grace" because we like it and less, get "Book of Daniel" off the air because we can't stand it and won't turn the channel.

Ever see a social conservative person shown in a good light by hollywood?

Ever is a long time, Mr. N. =) Sure, there have been positive portrayals of social conservatives. I'd say Edward R. Murrow was not a flaming liberal and it wasn't that long ago there was a movie about him. I actually got a copy of that one to go along with a few other keepers.

I've also wondered why Hollywood seems to have become intensely liberal. There are probably a lot of reasons for it. Nothing is ever really simple when it comes to political and social dynamics. And yet, we're talking about a very small subset of people. Mel Gibson doesn't have the clout of George Lucas, but he's radically conservative and he's a filmmaker whose money does talk.

Is it that Hollywood is liberal or that the people who are most visible are more liberal? There is a lot of money there, but there's also plenty of money in the conservatives in the fiancial sector, which more than balances out as there are more of them to chip in to political pots of conservative candidates.

Personally, Hollywood has largely lost me. There are not that many films I'm interested in seeing now. Most of them are fluff - hmmm, maybe they were all largely fluff, but it didn't used to seem that way. Perceptions change over time. I'll take the grandkids to see films like March of the Penguins - then again, that was not a Hollywood film.

Why do you paraphrase (and cover for the Clintons?) like:

"But the talk of the town out here is the dust-up among Hollywood's big political donors. When mogul and onetime FOB David Geffen called the Clintons liars (Geffen is now backing Senator Barack Obama)...:

When the real Geffen Quote from Maureen Dowd is so much more devastating:

"Once, David Geffen and Bill Clinton were tight as ticks. Mr. Geffen helped raise some $18 million for Bill and slept in the Lincoln Bedroom twice. Bill chilled at Chateau Geffen. Now, the DreamWorks co-chairman calls the former president ''a reckless guy'' who ''gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country.''

"They fell out in 2001, when Mr. Clinton gave a pardon to Marc Rich after rebuffing Mr. Geffen's request for one for Leonard Peltier. ''Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice?'' Mr. Geffen says. ''Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling.''"

Mr. Moran, you are typing about "inside baseball" when instead you should be looking into the character of Former and Want-a-bee Presidents by one of their biggest supporters.

Did you "tone down the quote" to obfuscate the real problems here?

-Bill

It might simply be that Hollywood moguls worked like hell to be successful by bringing together groups with diverse backgrounds--creative talent, corporate drones, finance types, etc.--and have developed a healthy, i.e. commercially productive, respect for difference that conservatives tend to squash.

Don't you ever think it wasn't fear that spurred the moguls to blacklist. They did what they were told to do by the administration. see; "A Short History of Disney-Fascism: The Lion King. ...

Fighting communism with fascism was never a good idea.

And it still happens, I'm sure there's been a Hollywood quota for pro American war movies since 2001. You know, the 200 million dollar recruitment-ads.

Who knows?, maybe that's why Clint Eastwood made 'Iwo Jima' hot on the heels of 'Flags of Our Fathers', maybe he was just trying to 'level the playing field', so to speak.

Why is Hollywood so liberal? "never again", they said, "never again".

Personally, I think they swing too hard in both directions, there's a lot to be said for the middle of the road, it's not as violent, and a child without a certain core strength might not be tempted to try something out of their moral-depth.

On the other hand,(“Had more Jews accepted Jesus, Mel Gibson today might be praying toward Mecca.”), Klinghoffer.

In short, I agree with Mr. Geffen.
lol, (and I'm Catholic)

What's the bottom line, to sell a movie in China, for example?

Gay is good;less kids.

Religion is bad; that's the state's job.

Gay is not an easy sell for Muslim countries, religion is ok if Christians are portrayed in a negative light. Sex is no.

Violence is a go.

So.

In a corrupt society, the free market cannot get us to the place of our greatest well-being. And since our society is obviously corrupt, the free market will only lead us eventually to greater and greater self-destruction. Corrupt nations throughout history have always gone down into the pit of terrible calamity and misery because of their Sodomistic, ever-increasing desire to experience all forms of evil on a continuing basis, a desire the amoral free market system will always try to satisfy even as it does now for us here in America. So, in this case, the free market is a false hope for our country unless we experience a true theological and spiritual reformation that greatly changes the moral complexion of our entire society. Should that near miracle occur, the free market would then work in our favor to supply our regained desire for the good, the true and the genuinely beautiful, but not before.

Calvin’s religious reformation was a fake-out, a deception. Truth to tell, the thoroughgoing misunderstandings of Augustine, Calvin and Luther are the theological reasons for the great religious and societal apostasy that we are now experiencing as dead churches and deader liberal cultural ideology and which cannot rescue us from the painful consequences of our own mindless depravity. That phony system has been tried in the ballance for many years and found enormously wanting. It's time for the real thing.

You are right, Terry, about the insatiable greed of Hollywood movers and shakers being a major reason for the strength of godless liberalism in the film industry. I lived there in the heart of Hollywood many years ago as a young actor and have seen it all first hand. These men are among the most profoundly ignorant people on earth when it comes to the principles of moral and governmental reality. Having rejected God’s principles because they don’t believe He even exists, they now wander through fields of utter moral confusion and demonic political deception without His guidance. They have long tried unsuccessfully in many silly ways to deal with their glowing sense of terrible guilt over what they know they are doing to the people of the world with their films which are usually quite destructive of civilizations highest values.

Sadly, they have come at last to cling in desperation to bankrupt liberalism as their salvation, their last best hope, because it offers them an entirely bogus sense of luminous virtue while simultaneously feeding their gargantuan, egomaniacal selfishness. What a powerful engine of self-destruction that combination has to be!

True virtue is completely beyond their grasp, of course, as long as their ultimate moral commitment remains their own supreme self-aggrandizement. But liberalism comes to their rescue by implying that they can be virtuous beyond reproach by simply supporting socialist/communist world government in every way. That is because socialism is falsely theorized as providing the greatest good for the largest number of people. Who wouldn't want that? They have become persuaded to fund and support the glorious socialist dream (actually a very appealingly deceptive lure leading directly into national ruin and coming straight from the Smoking Pit). By comparison to this wonderful "humanitarian benefit," they consider their making fortunes by producing "a few sleazy movies" to be a near harmless minor moral slip which should be merely winked at...after all, “none of us are perfect, right?” And "a guys gotta make a living somehow, don't ya know?"

This slick moral legerdemain allows them to almost fool themselves and others into thinking that they are actually very fine men even though “only human.” Down very deep, however, they are still fully aware of the truth of their slimy moral/spiritual condition. That’s why they must have frequent doses of honor and praise. Have you noticed the large number of award shows on TV these days for Hollywood biggies? Oscars? “A dozen will do quite well, thank you.” Golden Globe awards? “I’ll have a bag of them packed full to the top, please." But neither the vast amounts of money given to fund the Democrat's socialist, atheistic agenda nor the praise of other flagrant film industry hypocrites can blind them for long to the hideous reality that bubbles up from the raging fires and smoking coals below...can they Hollywood?

Oh, come on, Terry!

Are you kidding by acting as if your liberality, or that of anyone else in the MSM is an unknown quantity? Let's not be silly, now.

Why won't you have this discussion ON AIR? If you have the guts, please do so.

SR

Why is ABC so liberal and the rest of the MSM? That's a question most of us would finally like to see some honesty and openness about.

Who cares about Hollywood? They aren't "informing" people with slanted news every day?

Hollywood is all about acting, singing, and movie production. Their world is a pretend, not reality. I think the apparent liberalism comes from a disconnection from reality. If they want reality, I would like to give them the opportunity to taste it. I think it might change their attitudes at least to some extent.

The best part about Hollywood executives is that they are anti-Christian.

These heroes have done a great job of preventing our country from sliding into a theocracy.

They are the most powerful influences on our nation and I'm grateful to them.

.

It seems to me that the nature and best elements of drama as probably taught in film school (I did NOT go, so I'm speculating) is that the best stories involve individual heroes. I can't think of any movie ever made which portrayed a corporation as good, for example, even though many are (not counting the jobs that they all create for "individuals"). Stories about good coming from corporations are too hard to tell, and probably less interesting (without characters that they can get viewers to believe in), so they're never told. So the structure of moviemakers' lives would seem to me to be in believing those heart rendering tales, and to some degree focusing on those types of things as how life is, and how things should be viewed. So they tend to translate that to real life as well.

To XYZ:

I don't know if what you wrote is sarcasm or stupidity. If sarcasm I am all for you, if stupidity, you need to get a better education. Hollywood’s filth pot, sex, violence, bottom-feeding movies are tanking, while movies such as “The Chronicles of Narnia” are showing extraordinary popularity.

For the ignorant, remember the blockbusters; "The Passion of the Christ" and "The Ten Commandments".

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the LORD is our judge, [judicial] the LORD is our lawgiver, [legislative] the LORD is our king; [executive] He will save us.”

Of course we must also remember “The Declaration of Independence” which in the first sentence makes the entire document all about “Our Creator”. Christ is the creator and sustainer of all life.

I have what are known as the "Annals of America". They include every verbatim document of significance from the sailing of Christopher Columbus on. In particular the documents leading up to and shortly thereafter the formation of the Constitution the references to the Christian faith is most prominent. The "Annals" are published by Encyclopedia Britannica. These are certainly worth studying unless there is someone such as YOU with greater intelligence than the publishing staff of Encyclopedia Britannica in researching the existence and accuracy of these documents.

There is one document in the “Annals” you might find interesting. It is a sermon by a most scholarly minister name Jonathan Edwards. It is entitled “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God”. It was preached in Enfield, Connecticut on July 8, 1741. His text is --Their foot shall slide in due time. -- Deuteronomy 32:35

You can Google “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God” and easily find it.

Hollywood is liberal, because of those who are in Hollywood.

Actors, Living Fake lives on Film. With Fake body parts, Living A Pampered Fake life...... Looking down their noses at the rest of America.

They are papmered, paid handsomly, millions of people say they love them-- they HAVE to think " gee my opionion is worth more thyan others".

If the rest of the country were Leftist Socialist--- Hollywood would be Conservative. Vain people Craving attention.

Hollywood is liberal because such types of movies appeal to our lower base desires--voyeurism, violence, selfish sex, deviant sex, greed, etc. The fact is that these movies wouldn't be made to near the extent if much of the population didn't watch them and rent the DVDs, etc. Obviously a large percentage of the conservative base is also eating up these movies or they couldn't possibly do so well financially. Yes, they may not make it to the top 10 but nevertheless they still have significant pull. We are, by nature, fleshly so it's easier to not hold to a moral high ground but to appeal to our every base instinct. I find that those most immersed into such a mire, whether addicted to movies or your average TV addict, tend to be more liberal. No wonder. For the most part, such media is what they actually base their reality on and so the cycle continues towards an ever increasingly bottom of the barrel, mindless worldview. It's easier to listen to cheap entertainment than read the facts--again it appeals to our lazy, more selfish, base natures. The liberals in the media feed off of this hunger for more of this type of outlet, and in turn, the populace is further willing to make exceptions and allow for stuff that once they might have thought utter rubbish. Yes, we are becomingly increasingly liberal and with it goes our society down the slippery slope of relativism and such.

Again, well said, Ebbarn. I would simply add that the little books, Did God Know, by H. Roy Elseth, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, and, God's Strategy in Human History, could not fail to be of sincere interest for most people with questions about God and Christianity. All three are well written and highly intelligent, so they immensely reward any reader's time and effort. Of course, there are other sources of great information on this subject, but these small books will quickly start a person out along a very productive path to profound insight and understanding. For dependable information on the subject of entering into right relationship with God, I can only recommend the first half of Charles G. Finney's Systematic Theology...requires serious thought but well worth the time and effort considering how vital the information is for our eternal destiny and a happy life in the here and now. Good reading, all, you're worth it.

Terry Moran suggests that the reason for Hollywood's liberalism is partially rooted in the fact that sex sells, and well social conservatives would regulate and tone down some of that salacious material. But, viewing habits have gotten nastier ever year recently, and for the first time in 46 years, we had Republicans controlling all three branches of government. I mean CSI, Desperate Housewives. Although Grey's Anatomy isn't horribly vuglar, it did feature a very troubling ethics scenerio, and it tends to be towards the top. And sex scenes like the ones on Nip/Tuck are becoming more and more the norm. If social conservatives opposition to such values would result in tamer television, then it clearly hasn't. And I actually think that's determined viewers tastes, no matter what. A congress of 538 social conservatives would not equate to more favorable television to social conservatives, unless viewers showed such tastes in their ratings.

For starters, Hollywood is often about underdogs, and fighting against the grain, beating the odds, and the epic's. This would in some ways fit in more with liberalism, as liberalism tends to be about rooting for the little guy. Another reason might be order vs. stability. One of the earlier themes of conservatism was 'law and order', and much of artistic life really requires flexibility more than structure. Hollywood can also be really tough, it's very hard to make it, and a lot of these individuals might have faced hard times in climbing to where they are now, and they feel sympathetic to the ideas of spreading oppurtunity.

Another factor might be religion. Most born again white Protestants are Republicans or lean Republican, however most modernist mainline Protestants are/lean Democratic. We know there are a fair number of Jewish individuals, and they lean left. So, religious breakdown may be some of it.

I disagree that Hollywood's strength rests in its appeals to our worst desires, it also appeals to some of our best. Movies like Hotel Rwanda and others focus on social justice. And it shows many touching and sweet relationships between parents and kids. Epic tales of heroes making huge sacrifices, and star crossed love appeal to some of the most idealistic instincts in people.

To Duncan and ColinCody:

Thanks for the frank insight. I thought both of you, while different in style, presented your position well.

I am somewhat familiar with Charles G. Finney and I knew he wrote a systematic theology. What is most impressive with the Honorable Finney is that he was a working man's preacher.

It was said he frequented factories in the communities he held his crusades and his presence was such that workers who didn't have a clue as to who he was and what he did stopped their work just on the fact that he was there. He did not need a Hollywood agent.

If I remember correctly business owners would often offer paid time off from work with the option to attend services held by Finney on the business premises with the businessman's blessing.

Terry,,I think you have dragged a bit to much "realism" towards the issue..Hollywood does have a simple "yet" groundshaking approach to its craft..its called Door-to-Door Salesmanship..who even wishes to debate in the "Middle-of-the-Road" how to gather up an audiance/I quess it better "had" work well..I think this is where you may find those "L&R" which I most times jokingly call STEREO..as a place to be in an art..I think the money tells the story..like the Led ZEPP/song Stairway to Heaven..its more real than it seems at times..and then its all about age/beauty..so the political views mean little in the "long run"..Sex-Violence..Global community.."inclusion"..even the suicide rate fall all over HollyWood like gravy..I most times watch the St. Patrick's day meeting in Boston, Masschusetts..the "politico's" gather up their stories and their jokes and have a "fling" for themselves..my total lack of morals towards such lifestyles has me seeing some "food fight"..where there's a Big Yankee Pot Roast(throwing contest)vs. the Corned Beef and Cabbage(fling-fest)..Hollywood would form the same structure to battle about the "majors" and the "minors"..its as stupid is..Stupid IS..as Stupid Does..has that railroading ability to make money from THIN AIR..I think if any one person thinks the CLINTON's morally sensative is a complete liar(in the making)..the miniscule/make nothing work very well until they fill a room..and then there you have it..How Much for a Room Full OF People is really worth the "time of day"..??

MarkSM

A sign of intelligence is not the complexity of the communication, but rather the simplicity of the communication.

I am over 80 years old. To the best of my Hollywood has always been a bastion of liberalism and political positions further left. You could go back to the MacCarthy era for an example(hollywood ten)I don't know the reason why they gravitate left.

Of the major moguls Terry Moran mentions: Geffen, Katzenberg, Spielberg, Reiner, Lear, Saban-I don't recall much sex in the movies they've made.

Terry, your equation of LIBERALISM with SEX is IDIOTIC. Just IDIOTIC.

ALSO: Your description of Darryl F Zanuck did NOT ring true to me, and I did find this with a quick search of the net:

"The early to mid-'50s were also a period in which Zanuck and Fox did more than any other studio to resist the effects of the Red Scare and the Hollywood blacklist. Not that they were perfect, impervious to pressure, or especially bold, but one finds that Fox, more than any other of the major studios, quietly gave behind-the-scenes employment to figures such as Martin Ritt, Jeff Corey, and others who generally couldn't get work elsewhere."

http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=117829&mod=bio

I will do more checking about that when I get back to work at the Library on Monday, but I wonder, WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE OF INFORMATION OR MISINFORMATION?

After all, Zanuck gave us such films as GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT, PINKY, and THE GRAPES OF WRATH. These are films that liberals hold dear. NOT Last Tango in Paris. It's ideas, stories and the truth that fiction can depict, NOT sex and NOT violence (another huge moneymaker which you leave out of the equation altogether) that interest liberals.

My guess, Terry, is that you are connservative. No liberal journalist could have such a shallow take on the relationship between creative people and politics OR get his facts so wrong.

Before you attribute factual errors to only conservatives--you may wish to look at Mr. Moran's last several posts:

# I Stand Corrected
# Is Giuliani "White" Enough?

Absolutely none of those errors (i.e., the whole premise of his blog posting in the first place) was slanted towards falsely coloring "conservative" positions in a good light.

As had been said many times, everyone is allowed their own opinions--just not their own facts.

-Bill

In the end, this may be a shallow blog post about shallow people:

From Link in "Posted by: Bill":

"The mainstream press has largely steered clear of stories about the Clintons' marriage. A widely noted article last May in The New York Times reported that the Clintons are often apart. "Nights out find him zipping around Los Angeles with his bachelor buddy, Ronald W. Burkle, or hitting parties and fund-raisers in Manhattan; she is yoked to work in Washington or New York ... " No longer Geffen's pal (or recipient of his largesse), Bill Clinton has been spending more time with Burkle, a supermarket tycoon who is giving a big fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton in March. The buzz in Hollywood is that Geffen is jealous of Burkle. But Geffen denies it, and denies any animus against the Clintons. "I think Bill Clinton is a great guy," he tells NEWSWEEK. "I support them both. I just don't think she can be elected president.""

Sounds like a real set of deep thinkers out there--not...

-Bill

Link did not come through:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17313110/site/newsweek/

-Bill

Librarian

The term liberal honorably has been attached to freedom of though and of action. In the extremes, libertarian is sometimes the label. In the film industry the "Holy Grail" is the concept of “creative license”.

All this is good until there becomes an overwhelming and unrestrained obsession with violence, the gradual destruction of the traditional concept of family, unchecked morals, sex, and other depravity. Such influence has permeated the dark side of Hollywood and Associates, and as a result the perpetrators seek to feed the lusts of the viewing public’s depravity promoting a sub-human character.

There must be restraint in the libertarian culture; a sense of common decency. This libertarian culture, under the guise of "creative license", has shown its lack of self-restraint and responsibility, but rather has gradually conditioned the viewing public to where what would have shocked a substantial viewing public twenty years ago now does not shock at all.

Hence conservatism; which seeks to impose some limits on just how far depravity can blossom. Some of this is attempted within the media industry, and some has been necessarily regulated by statute. This diametric opposition is the result of a segment of the libertarian media culture’s unwillingness to show responsible restrain.

The Hollywood liberals are destroying our values. Period. By promoting sex, evolution, the theory of the big bang, big government subsidies and by decrying prayer and school they are killing us as a culture.

Hollywood are a bunch of rich communists.....

Liberals believe in expressing one's self. There's no such thing as safe speech. If you don't like what some one says then you speak out. More speech, not less.

So it's only natural that actors would gravitate toward liberalism since there craft requires they become the character they playing.

If conservative were in control everything would have a happy ending or a message. Sometimes I want to see a monster rip some ones head of just for the sake of a good horror flick. No meaning just expression.

Thought provoking post.

On the idea of Hollywood leaning left so they can have more sex in cinema: Personally as the mother of a 3 year old, I believe that violent films cause much more harm than ones with too much steamy sex. Sex, after all can actually create life as well as destroy a spirit if used as a weapon. Violence never creates, it only destroys. I find it so interesting that conservative thinkers fear sex and think violence is just fine - in film or as a foreign policy. I am routinely shocked but the level of violence present in animated movies targeted at children. As a parent and a movie-goer it is up to me what I choose to support with my time and money. We all have the power to vote with our dollars on this one.

On the idea of Hollywood moguls seeing themselves as citizens of the world, I say Hooray! It's an idea whose time has come. And it doesn't mean we have to give up pride in our nation. It just changes what we think makes us proud to be Americans, English, French, Mexican, Japanese, or whatever. Let's think in terms of what our nations are doing to make the whole world a better place to live.

The Earth is one big neighborhood, and it matters if you dump trash in your neighbors’ yard, or hire the poor folks at the end of the block to make your clothes for pennies when you make millions. It matters when you work together to solve problems rather than deepen existing rifts or create new ones based on race, religion, or other differences that give our kids causes to kill and be killed by each other.

I seem to recall a certain someone once said, love your neighbor as yourself. Maybe Hollywood's liberalism and dedication to "community without a nation" is more “right” than the Right.

It's up to us common folks in the middle with common sense to make sure we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let's hold our nation to the principles it was founded on (Now that was a leading edge moment for the world!) where all (hu)men are created equally with unalienable rights (and corresponding responsibilities). It was only a matter of time before these wise words led us to the understanding that our actions must be consistent not only within our own borders, where there is still work to do, but also in how we show up in the world.

I am proud to be an American each and every time our leaders, or we as a people, make choices that promote the general welfare of the entire neighborhood. Only then will my little girl have a chance at the promise our founding fathers made to all Americans – life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happyness.

If Hollywood is pushing us in that direction, even if it goes too far at first, I for one say thank you, thank you, thank you.

Rima

I oppose both the unbridled violence and the sexual depravity. What bothers me is using the window dressing term "steamy sex" instead of what it truly is which is SEXUAL DEPRAVITY. Of course not many people seek to be personally attached to depravity. I assume you don’t or you would have said I love sexual depravity. Is that what you are doing? Are you excusing uncontrolled lust while trying to divert attention from it by supposedly vehemently opposing violence? A case can be made that there is a connection between sexual depravity and violence. I can give an example if you wish.

In trying to answer that question, I'm afraid I came up with more questions than answers. And the questions?...Does the left leaning party allow them to buy more influence? Give them more leeway in what they do? More tax breaks? Or is it just that they are 'artists' and it's always been in to be left if you're an artist..they used to be the rebels in our society...they delude themselves into thinking they are making society 'better'..when in fact they have contributed to it's downfall..misguided people can do a great deal of harm. At one time even the Communists tho't they were helping people and making society 'better'.
Or is it just that the conservatives long ago abandoned Hollywood and left it to them? Or were they run out of town so to speak by all the money the liberals made by selling all that sex and smut???
It's hard to tell...but I for one am tired of having the world see us as a corrupt society..of having our children believe all that stuff they see on TV and in the movies! And tired of the national news media slanting the news any way they like and passing it off as 'truth'...Whatever happened to OBJECTIVE reporting???Whatever happened to integrity, honesty and truth???
And Terry Moran..why aren't you on TV anymore? I tho't you were left leaning ..then I read something you wrote and tho't no..he's conservative...now I'm not so sure...maybe it doesn't matter...whatever your views they seem to have buried you down here in the 'blogs'..so thank you for permitting us to voice OUR opinions...hope it has a good result for you personally!!!

Gee, how 'bout Passions of the Christ, The Chronicles of Narnia, Shrek duo, Finding Nemo, Pirates of the Caribbean? I would say box office and DVD sales of these movies made them among the most profitable in Hollywood history both in US and worldwide. It's not just sex that Hollywood prefers to push it's the drug and gang culture. And frankly the potential sales for these films is far less than those with a little skin.

And I haven't read your posts before, but good one about you maybe being a conservative. Funny stuff, Terry!

Geffen is a raving homosexual queen. He's really mad that Clinton didn't do more to push the homosexual agenda.

Most of the Hollywood elite liberals are varying combinations of jewish, homosexual, anti-christian. There should be no surprise that they push the politics and the films (mostly trash) that they do.

I am a Christian writing theologian and also a professional actor. Strange combination, to be sure, and stranger still, I also sing, paint, sculpts, dance, etc. So, I know well the experience of being vibrantly creative in many areas, and, believe me, there is nothing about being creative that necessarily predisposes one to being politically liberal or morally corrupt. In fact, it is liberalism and corruption in all their forms rather than the arts that require a strong element of goofy dislocation from common sense reality. Liberals see life from the perspective of a high degree of unreality, fantasy or just plain, old-fashioned ignorance and stupidity.

Real artists of all kinds are intensely connected to reality (with the exceptions of Vincent Van Gogh and Pablo Picasso if you consider them real artists--I don't) as a necessary requirement for communicating with a sane audience. Of course, much of what is claimed to be art these days is really only the ludicrous excrement of shallow, unbalanced minds valued and enjoyed by other shallow, unbalanced minds. That’s why people like me don’t listen to popular secular music, don’t watch modern movies--with rare exceptions, read few current books or watch much TV. We have no place in this mad-hatter world, although we do at times interact with it seeking to call it back somehow to sanity at particularly auspicious moments when we might be heard above the terrible screams of the "lambs being slaughtered."

Finney was a pelagian...'nuf said!

What exactly IS the definition of a Liberal? Or a Conservative for that matter.

What is the deep dark evil so many associate with the word "Liberal"?

Mr. Moran says that the left has the notion that national loyalty can be superseded by a broader allegiance to the abstract goals of, among other things, human rights and global environmental stewardship.

Is Mr. Moran saying that the right is not concerned with human rights or global environmental stewardship? This is the concern of Liberals only? Surely not. I cannot believe that all Conservatives have no concern whatsoever for human rights or environmental stewardship.

Is Mr. Moran asserting that such a disregard for humanity and the planet would be something to be proud of?

Is blind, unquestioning allegiance to a nation always to be desired? My country right or wrong? The obvious denial to such an assertion is, of course, Hitler's Germany.

What exactly is OUR national identity? Our freedoms? Or is our national identity made up of Wall Street, the Superbowl, the World Series, NASCAR, American Idol, Anna Nicole and Brittany? Actually, I think I should have listed Wall Street last as it certainly does appear that most of the country identifies much more with the others listed.

What exactly is this national identity to which we should all pledge our undying loyalty?

Loyalty to a government that seeks to dilute or remove the very freedoms that define us as a nation? And with hardly a squawk of protest from the citizenry.

The unquestioning support of a trillion-dollar war that, in addition to killing our troops and the civilians (including children) of the occupied country and increasing membership in terrorist organizations, will financially haunt future generations?

National loyalty for a nation that fails to plan for and provide adequate care for the scores of maimed troops returning home?

Loyalty for a nation where our government looked away as the drowned, water-logged bodies of our fellow citizens floated down the streets of our cities? The government still looks away and we let them.

National loyalty for a nation where judges claim they just cannot live on $165,000+ per year and then our ELECTED OFFICICALS, who are supposed to represent ALL citizens, do everything in their power to stonewall a living wage for the poorest of our working citizens?

Loyalty to a nation that advocates torture? And we allow them to torture in our name, again, with hardly a peep of protest.

Loyalty to a nation where we are no longer a people who can be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."Amendment IV of the United States Constitution?

Loyalty to a nation that has deemed it legal to incarcerate people forever without charges, while denying them legal counsel, communication with their families, and no trial every needed? Again, a deafening silence from the public. Oh, sure that's ok. It's just the terrorists, that could NEVER happen to regular people like us.

To paraphrase the old poem, if we don't stand up now for others, when they come for us there won't be anyone left to stand up for us.

There must be Conservatives somewhere in this country who think about all these things I've listed. Just as there must be Liberals in this country who couldn't care less.

We are never going to make it as a civilization unless we can overcome this us versus them mentality. Whether it is Liberals vs Conservatives, races vs each other, men vs women, religions vs religions, heterosexual vs homosexual or the United States vs the rest of the world, we're going to have to find a way to live together.

Posted by: ebbarn | Feb 26, 2007 2:15:25 PM

So in your mind is all sex "sexual depravity"?

Good Heavens! What kind of movies are you watching?

That's the great thing about television or movies.

For television you can always change the channel, or even better, turn it off!

For movies, don't go!

If you have children, it is your responsibility to make sure that they are watching and reading appropriate material.

Posted by: Phyl | Feb 27, 2007 10:17:11 AM

How can the world NOT see us as a corrupt society?

A list of companies embroiled in various financial scandals:

http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/25/accountingtracker.html

Congressional scandals with under-age pages.

Congressional bribery scandals.

The free and unfettered purchase of our government representatives by lobbyists.

The absolute lack of truthfulness and integrity displayed by all levels of our government right in to the White House.

Corrupt society? If the shoe fits, and it does, I'm afraid we must wear it.

In my community we had some kids in drama class that decided to go Hollywood. This is a rural “conservative” community.

Someone dropped the ball. The drama teacher was on hall duty and these kids found their selves unsupervised.

They were caught in the middle of doing a porn movie during school hours. They all have been suspended indefinitely.

Do you think the "steamy sex" from the entertainment culture that might have influenced their having no problem stripping down or did they just think this up on their own?

If you think they thought it up on their own I have some ocean front property in Arizona I would like to sell you.

Loyalty to ones' nation doesn't mean 'blind' loyalty. It means being loyal to the countrys' original ideals as put forth by our founding fathers.
Unfortunately, it is people who make up a nation. Is it fair to say that the permissiveness of the '60s and '70s and all that 'flower power' has spawned what our nation has become????
Drugs, sex and Rock and Roll hardly make for a people with high ideals to carry on the traditions of our forefathers.
And to blame the government for not doing enough..WELl..there you go...the 'liberals' all want 'big daddy' government to take care of them in everything..then they complain that it has too much power. Can't have it both ways..
Also..is it fair to say that alot of the present practices of the government is a direct result of the fact that we at WAR????? And NOT just because it's a big, bad, daddy of a government? Come on people..GET REAL!!!!

Hey Terry, We actually had a similar conversation on this at CourtTV a long time ago...

In our old discussion we were talking about why people would watch hours and hours of testimony and complete trials on Court TV. And at the time I said it had very little to do with their love or interest in Law and the system of Justice.
It was a matter of feeling good about themselves by basking in another individual's misery.
The trials would get high ratings becuase people could see just how screwed some of the people on trial were and how awful their lives are and feel better about their own boring and uneventful lives. "Hey my life must be pretty good because look at that poor guy!"

This is why reality TV is so popular, Lets watch people stab each other in the back for prizes or see them ostracize someone from the group. Blame each other for problems. This is why seeing someone in deep trouble with the law is appealing. It is also why they like to see movies where someone is getting shot at or killed or has little to no moral limitations. It makes the viewer feel safe, secure and moral because they then can compare their life to what they see on the screen.

Hollywood (and I include the TV media that is mostly goverened by Hollywood) sees this need and caters to it as the way to make money. There is a lot of money in this pseudo psychotherapy. Their fear is if they can not cater to these whims or feed this need of the public to feel moral and normal they will go to other venues and spend their money there to get thier fix. So yes your correct in it is all about the money.

But to get that money Hollywood has also resorted to going to extremes in an effort to feed this need.

Where the fear is for them is that if some restrictions were ever put in place they would not be able to top last weeks freak show and therefore not be able to cash in on that social reassurance that makes these topics so popular!

As for your theory that they feel part of a international sensability as opposed to a national identity well even if that were the case the majority of the world is actually quite conservative outside of the European continent. So if they truly think they are identifying with the whole of humanity they are really not politically or morally aligned with the majority of the planet.

Since no conservative is going to take money from the producers of Brokeback mountain there is only one place for these guys to go and buy their power and influence.
And that is with the liberals who hardly seem to care where the money comes from as long as it comes!

Which puts them ideologically in line with hollywood and its intent to feed the lowest common denominator...
Because that is where the money is!

What is so odd is that there are no more republicans and democrats
there are now Liberals and Conservatives.
you have people called republicans trying to regulate businesses and democrats trying to take away all restrictions.
When the hell did that change?
I hope your next blog will talk about that!

glad to see a hard working friend do so well after leaving Brill Hell!

Many people like the flakes in Hollywood are mislead into political liberalism through a commitment to some false religion or goofy religious or semi-religious ideas. I've seen it many times among my relatives and friends in and out of Hollywood. This sickness of the mind and soul can be cured in part or in whole by administering a serious dose of Charles Finney's interpretation of the Scriptures concerning saving right relationship with God. And that is an excellent reason why an accurate view of Finney's theology, particularly his soteriology, is imperative for us all. It can powerfully protect us from loon delusions of a political and religious nature by anchoring us down so very deeply into fundamental spiritual reality that we quite simply cannot be shaken and led astray.

Charles G. Finney was one of the very greatest men in all of history: an evangelist whose effectiveness vastly exceeded that of any other man of like calling who ever lived (poor, sad old Billy Graham doesn’t even begin to compare--read Finney's Memoirs); a systematic theologian far beyond any who ever published on soteriology--try reading Finney's Systematic Theology--although admittedly he was sometimes inconsistent; a highly successful college professor beloved and admired by all his students; a faithful pastor who taught his congregation the deep things of God; a powerfully effective abolitionist; a real man of deep, abiding and consistent devotion to Christ Jesus (no scandals were ever legitimately associated with his name or ministry though he had many jealous enemies from among the ranks of churchianity); and he was a profoundly loving husband and father.

Sadly, there are simple-minded souls today who assume the theology of the monstrous mass murderer and serial murderer, John Calvin, to be true beyond possibility of contradiction probably because that's all they've ever heard. But a careful study of Calvin’s theology reveals that by implication he defined God’s character to be consistent with his own enormously evil character and thus by extention consistent with Satan’s character. So, like today's Islamic terrorists, while followers of Calvin's theology call the object of their worship “god,” the truth is that by definition they worship a "being" with the character of Satan who pretends to be the God of the Bible. I believe that "being" to be no less than Satan himself.

Now today’s Calvinists are not content with worshipping Satan by themselves; no, they feel the psychotic need to convert others to their diabolical views and, furthermore, slander the views of those who contradict Calvin’s religious Cool Aid. Thus, the prevailing ludicrous twaddle against Finney used by these delusional souls is that his views are consistent with those of Pelagius. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth, as Satan well knows, but, after all, he is “the deceiver” for whom lying is standard operating procedure.

Finney claimed rightly to be a "modified Calvinist," because he, unhappily, was never able to rid himself of all the filthy Calvinism with which he had been inundated for years. He was miraculously able to escape from the tar barrel, but couldn't scrape off every bit of the tar.

As I understand what little is known of Pelagius, he taught a rigorous form of soteriological legalism reminiscent of Wesley's early Methodism.

But according to Finney's systematic theology, which I am currently rewriting into modern language and style, Finney taught the genuinely biblical view of salvation which is not in the slightest legalistic and thus not like that of Pelagius.

Finney believed we enter into genuine saving right relationship with God through Christ by following Christ's own entirely accurate instructions for so doing. I believe they are most clearly found in Luke 9:23--"If anyone would be my disciple (become a true, born again Christian), let him deny himself (put away selfish ultimate life motive, i.e., living supremely for one's own selfish benefit at the cost of the greater good of God and others), take up his cross (choose Christ's life purpose of unselfish, holy love [agape] as supremely demonstrated in his sacrificial, atoning death on the cross) daily (not a once-for-all-time, pagan, magical thing but rather a spiritual commitment producing a spiritual change which must necessarily be renewed daily because it is entirely SPIRITUAL as opposed to being to any degree PHYSICAL, molecular) and follow me" (diligently seek to live out the implications of one's salvation commitment in every aspect of life but not from the legalistic motive of works righteousness as the often presumed means of maintaining one's state of right relationship with God. We live it out as the loving spiritual expression of the salvation commitment which assumes by its very nature that we will always want to express it wholeheartedly in our lives. Multifaceted expression consistent with the moral/spiritual fundamentals of the covenant is organic to the nature of any such agreement and so cannot be otherwise. Without that upon which the salvation relationship is based, i.e., continuous commitment to the covenantal terms of salvation, our saving relationship with God could not possibly continue to exist).

This soteriology is grounded in profound, biblically derived spiritual principles rather than superficial works righteousness twaddle; therefore, Finney's views are plainly not what Pelagius taught. These spiritual principles produce real, clearly observable and sometimes radical change in people's lives just as lovingly intended by our Heavenly Father. They are the powerful dynamics for victory over sin that no false gospel of legalism has or even comes close to having.

If you listen carefully, you can hear the lambs in Hollywood screaming in agony as they are being torn apart, slaughtered by the ravening wolves in sheep's clothing who everywhere abound in corrupt, apostate organized religion. God weeps.

Don't let it happen to you; Finney's soteriology can protect you and your family from the wolves' multitude of false religions and the profoundly destructive attractions of political Liberalism.

Well Colin,
you managed to make that point without the use of the word infidel once so I must give you credit for that.

the problem is that evangelical conservatives and Liberals all suffer from the same disease...
Both assume their point of view is the only way and that everyone else feels the same way they do because they do not interact or associate with people who do not feel that way! Since they aren't seen they don't exist.

While I have no doubt that anyone who follows some interpretation of the scriptures might find a better way and path in their life those scriptures are not much good to a Hindu or Hebrew since they are not christian and do not believe in those scriptures!

the liberals seem to believe everyone is a liberal and the evengelical conservatives assume everyone is Christian.

the world falls somewhere in between!

Jesus himself was quite liberal as was Mohammed. Jesus preached tolerance of non believers and to show love towards your enemies which is pretty liberal thinking when you come right down to it.

Mohammed referred to Jesus as someone who was a good person and a shining example of what a good muslim should be even though he was not Muslim to illustrate how just being muslim was not enough to make you a good person. In essence you did not have to be muslim to be a good person and a non muslim could be better than a muslim provided they lived thier life by the tenets of the teachings and lived the spirituality it was trying to convey.

Unfortunatly these wise words from the prophets were taken down by men not gods and men put their own spin on the teachings. somehow we went from Love your enemy to destroy them. As you so eloquently stated. These scriptures say what you want them to say based on interpretations. But who are we as lowly humans to INTERPRET what god himself wants or meant? Do not the words stand on their own without the help of a theologians interpretation?

Hollywood will never limit it's creativity on such a single minded premise nor a single theocratic interpretation. It can express the spirituality that you want provided it sets it mind more on creativity than it does box office.

Star Trek managed to embrace all the spirituality of Christianity, Islam and Judaism combined without ever once quoting scripture!

Immoral behavior in a morality play is not something to look down on.
But Immoral behavior to tittilate is the main problem and where most of the releases hollywood provides us fails!

their belief or un-belief is not the problem. the problem is society and it's lack of faith in itself! It has this lack of faith because no one has given them an option on what to do to live well and instead has focused on control of them instead!

And any attempt to control what does not want to be controlled will feel a backlash!
Which is why the hollywood folks lean so much towards your percieved godlessness and liberal ideology.

Hollywood will change when it has no choice but to change.

Judaism will do nothing.

Fundamental Islam would be very shift. Change or shut down or off with the heads.

Fundamental Christianity as is is impotent embracing strange fatalistic doctrine regarding such books as Genesis, Daniel, and Revelation. Legitimate sciences regarding beginnings and Reformation Theology have been deserted.

Christianity would have to change from within to effect change of the heart which would at the very least bankrupt Hollywood in its present form.

If Hollywood wanted to eat they would have produce a better programming, otherwise not enough people would watch. If there were not people enough to watch, there would be not enough ticket and movie sales or rentals, and the advertising dollars on television would not support the filth.

The solution abides with Christians who are not cowards, are not on their dead hind ends waiting to be caught up and rescued, and are willing get to work dealing with morality and influence issues as it relates to Hollywood.

The most effective action is presenting the Gospel of our Lord God Jesus Christ to the local community, state, nation, and the world. Demand for Hollywood’s filth would dry up, and thus Hollywood would have to change.

Well, Mike, I’m going to have to stand by an earlier post in which I tried to make the point, perhaps feebly, that conservatives and liberals do interact and understand each other on a superficial, issue oriented level but not at the philosophical level at which there could be a serious meeting of the minds. Were both groups to understand each other’s basic philosophical dynamics, they could debate at that level and perhaps, given a sane intellectual environment, have at least a chance of reaching some degree of agreement.

It is supremely important to understand that conservatives and liberals assume very different things about the basic nature of human beings. We conservatives believe that people develop best when they are allowed to take responsibility for their own lives, to find their own way and take care of themselves. On the other hand, liberals believe that people in general (not themselves, to be sure) need to be guided in all things by those far more enlightened than themselves (the liberal elite, of course). Those who fail to achieve success on their own must be helped by their superiors (Hollywood millionaires?) to gain the success they are assumed to deserve by virtue of their being human beings. That is the philosophy behind the welfare state.

The liberal dream of heaven-on-earth, the welfare state, has been designed by the said liberals to be funded in large part by conservatives. But we, of course, do not share their dream. In fact, we believe their dream to be extremely counter-productive as it relates to human development. Scientific studies, understandably unpopular with media and academic liberal elitists, have now shown conservatives to be right about the harmful nature of the welfare state. You don’t need a scientific study, however, to determine that people