Pushback

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.