Why Hollywood Uses Politically-Correct Villains: It's the Economy, Stupid
"Inglourious Basterds" director Quentin Tarantino in a supporting role in his first film, 1992's "Reservoir Dogs." Like "Basterds" the film was entirely apolitical.
Last night’s Red Eye discussed how Hollywood films like to use certain kinds of villains over others. Host Greg Gutfeld has a beef with the new “Rambo,” “GI Joe,” and Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds.”
According to Gutfeld:
“These three films have two things in common. They avoid present real danger in the world and choose villains that are not just safe but politically correct to hate.â€
On some level this is true. The film industry, like any other business, generally wants to appeal to the largest audience possible. Picking “safe†enemies is one way to do that. As far as the new “Rambo” film, Stallone is just playing it safe because he must. He does not have much of a career left — just let it slide, Greg. As for the monumentally crappy “GI Joe,” let’s not even get into that can of worms.
Gutfeld continues:
“You’d think it would be easy for Quentin Tarantino to find a present-day enemy for the Jews (like, say, a terrorist group that denies the Holocaust and wants to wipe Israel off the map), but maybe none exist!â€
With the politics surrounding Hollywood, one thing people have to understand is that not every filmmaker thinks he or she is a politician. They don’t all want to make political statements with their films. Quentin Tarantino is one of those people. All of his films have remained entirely apolitical. His only concern is making a great film rather than making a political statement.
FOX News anchor Lauren Sivan said this of the film:
“The Jews finally have a movie where we’re depicted as heroic and you guys just dump all over it. Give us something!â€
I am surprised by some of the backlash from this film. For the record, both my NewsReal colleague David Swindle and I loved it. Maybe those who pan it just don’t enjoy Tarantino films. They may also just be grouping him with the usual Hollywood crazies, which isn’t fair. Tarantino is no Oliver Stone.
Gutfeld also said:
“It is distasteful to consider a battle between good and evil if it’s happening now, because then you have to choose sides.â€
There is some obvious merit to this statement. With the current economy, filmmakers don’t want to risk losing any potential audience. Even when ticket sales are up, filmmakers may not want to pick sides on an issue. Hollywood doesn’t always like a clear line between good and evil, so in order to lock a distributor, a director might keep his or her politics ambiguous (especially if those politics are right of center).
I would certainly love to see some more films clearly taking sides in the war on terror. However, a great film does not necessarily have to pick political sides with contemporary issues. “Inglourious Basterds” is an ideal example.
I feel you are both right and wrong in some respects. First of all you are correct in your assertions about Tarantino. Quentin is not setting out to create a political film he is intending to create a film that he wants to create period. It’s whatever is in his head that he wants to make. Inglorious Basterds began as a concept 10 years ago (before 9/11) so it’s wholly disingenuous to say he was purposefully avoiding a movie with islamist antagonists. He wanted to make a fictional WWII movie so he did. End of story. The part of your post I disagree with is when you say Hollywood tries to avoid taking sides on an issue to make a profit. Unless I misunderstood your point I would say there are many examples that exist to say this is not the case. Just take a look at any of the anti-war films made during the Bush years…Lions for Lambs being one that comes to mind. Now those films were definitely not profitable and clearly they take a stance, but that didn’t keep the industry from turning out that crap. It seems to me they don’t have a problem picking sides as long as it’s the “correct” side.
What’s a lame screenwriter to do? Hollywood is on an endless quest for ever-more sinister villains, and there are only so many swarthy types to go around. Besides, now that multi-culturalism is all the rage, a writer can’t just latch onto any visible minority and turn its members into baddies. Do that just once and all the bleeding hearts in search of victims will come down on you like a ton of bricks. The next thing you know some whacko is calling in a bomb scare and shutting down your production, you’re behind schedule and the boss is on your case big time all because you cast Arabs as terrorists. Go figure. Who would have thought the entertainment industry would be inundated by a wave of political correctness so severe that studios would be brought to a state of near paralysis at the thought of casting a villain.
The guys with a real advantage are science-fiction writers; they can conjure up reprobates with impunity. Another plus, sci-fi villains can be as ugly as the make-up department dares make them and nobody cares. An added bonus is that space monsters can be any colour. Hell, it’s not like there’s a National Association for the Advancement of Klingons or anything. Consider for a moment the character of Jabba the Hutt. Remember that slime-ball of a lizard-cum-gangster that ate people whole in Star Wars; you didn’t hear of any gravitationally challenged folks picketing theaters protesting the unfair depiction of the obese did you? Another thing, throughout the whole scene Princess Leia is sitting right in front of Jabba in her skivvies and ol’ Jaba looks like he’s got the big-time hots for her. Ask yourself, are moviegoers thinking miscegenation? Leia and Jabba in the kip, the very idea is enough to make a kid hurl his Oreos and milk. No wonder Han Solo fought as fiercely as he did in defense of Leia’s honour.
Second place in the easy-bad-guys-to-write sweepstakes goes to the scribes specializing in horror flicks. With the possible exception of Godzilla, who is really big in Japan, monsters and killer tomatoes have no ethnicity, so there are no worries about political incorrectness. On those rare occasions when the ghoul is human, the writer can either cast a Brit (you know how weird Brits can be) or he can stick a goalie mask on the perp. Hey, slap a goalie mask on a nut bar and hand him a Husqvarna and your average moviegoer ain’t likely to wonder about the psycho’s ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation to name but three potential public sensitivities. A horror movie writer’s only real limitation is making sure there aren’t too many Blacks, Sikhs, or Orientals named Stumpy hopping about the chainsaw massacre set when the PC-police raid the sound stage to check quotas. The best thing to do is cut off only white guys’ legs, arms, and heads. This way the film regulators can’t claim you’re promoting violence against any particular gender or ethnic group, because white guys don’t count.
Feminists also have it pretty easy when writing movie scripts. The standard in Hollywood today has women struggling against male oppression. Now admit it, you saw that cliché coming. A typical plot-line will have Ms. Womyn Hearme-Bore pitted against the manager of the peeler bar at which she struts her stuff. It could be an ice cream parlour or an investment bank, it doesn’t matter, because there is always a struggling woman and a man who keeps her wistfully looking up at the glass ceiling, and in some cases thinking of England.
The guys with a real advantage are science-fiction writers; they can conjure up reprobates with impunity.
Yet the biggest SF film upcoming is AVATAR, in which the aliens (the unspoiled innocent natives at harmony with nature) are the good guys and the evil exploiting humans the bad guys. Or as the hilarious Hitler UTUBE put it, “Leave the remake of “Ferngully: The Last Rainforest” to Lucas!”
How does your “they’re just doing it for the money” theory work with this one? Remember “The Lion King”? With it’s anti-illegal immigrant and supposedly anti-gay subtext? Nearly 800 million dollars in 1994 money. Remember what a surprise hit the Euro produced “Taken” was this year? Who were the main bad guys in that?
Nah, I can’t buy the “Hollywood makes mamby pamby left center movies because of the bottom line”. There’s just too much evidence against it.
With the current economy, filmmakers don’t want to risk losing any potential audience. Even when ticket sales are up, filmmakers may not want to pick sides on an issue.
Yeah… right.
I’m going out on a limb here to predict there will never be another True Lies with the Crimson Jihad as the bad guys. And Cameron gets extra points for casting them as dufus bad guys. What better way to counter the power of terrorists than to mock them? But it won’t happen again. Hollywood now respects our enemies and attacks our soldiers. Or, even better, the very American system that makes Hollywood its fortunes.
But when the scenery chewing Ben Affleck succeeded in getting Tom Clancy’s Sum Of All Fears to replace actual terrorists with neo-nazis, that tore it for me.
Clancy had written a remarkably prescient picture of modern Islamic terrorism against the US. Hollywood makes it into a movie.
By 2002–after 9/11’s actual self-defined Islamic terrorist attack against the US–Hollywood’s version gives us bad guys who are (wait for it) nazis.
Hollywood and the All-Hitler-All-The-Time History Channel (and National Geographic, to a lesser extent) owe Adolf Hitler a gigantic debt.
Without Hitler, we’d have no entertainment industry.
“Inglourious Basterds” was a very good film. I must say, I laughed out loud at some of the ridiculous characterizations of well known Nazis. Hitler almost alway got a chuckle out of me. And the squint-eyed Pitt, so stiff and self-assured, helped me overlook the fact I was enjoying a mivie with HIM in it!
As tot he post regarding “Sum Of All Fears” changing the evil doers, I agree totally. Damn near made me reject modern Hollywood. “Taken” was redeeming on several levels, a true, original, breath of fresh air!
“Woof woof!” That’s my other dog imitation…
Its all about the money? Please explain the 10+ streak of anti war movies which Hollywood continues to churn out. All of them are dead on arrival but Hollywood keeps releasing them. You can’t pay people to go to these disasters and they’ve wasted massive amounts of cash.
Clearly its NOT about the money in Hollywood these days. Its about towing the party line.
Hollywood is like high school. It’s not about the money, it’s about being popular. Take for instance Lions for Lambs. Robert Redford knew he wasn’t going to make a dime on it, but he knew he could raise the money for it. After all, everybody wants to be “in” with the cool guy. Ultimately though, it’s about getting laid. The “rebels” always get the best ‘tang.
Hollywood Villains: Leftist Agenda Trumps Audience Appeal
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-nolte/2009/09/02/hollywood-villains-leftist-agenda-trumps-audience-appeal
I have to agree with the last few commenters here. You are all wet on the scenario you lay out. It’s not the economy, stupid, it’s the ideology. Pure and simple. They produce what they and their leftist buds THINK we want to see, but especially what they want to make. Then, when we don’t show up to the box office, you’d think they’d buy a clue. Nope. We get regurgitation times 100. I liked Ing. Basterds. But then I like QT movies. I could have done without that hideous Southern mtn. boy accent of Pitt’s, being a Southerner, but I am used to it. We have to cringe through what Hollywood THINKS we sound like, but it was a good film.
I disagree with a part of your comment here B-Rent. I don’t think all Hollywood movies are made to make a profit. “Lions For Lambs” was practically a vanity project from Robert Redford. There’s no fing way he ever expected to make a dime back on that piece of crap.
Now if a studio is investing $100 million into a picture then generally they’re going to be smart enough to try and not rock the boat politically.
I see your point. I was trying to make the point that Hollywood in general is not afraid to put out films with leftist themes (for profit or anything else), but movies with conservative themes are much fewer and farther between.