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.