To Big Hollywood's John Nolte: The Left Doesn't Have As Tight a Stranglehold on Cinema as You Fear
As if NewsReal hasn’t stumbled into enough debates already, now we have John Nolte, Editor-In-Chief of the essential conservative pop culture blog Big Hollywood challenging us.
On September 1 Chris Yogerst (who also writes for Big Hollywood and Parcbench in addition to NewsReal) wrote a post here jumping into the debate about “Inglourious Basterds” and why Hollywood often employs politically correct villains:
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.
This was met with a friendly rebuttal from Nolte, Yogerst’s boss at Big Hollywood on September 2:
Yesterday, our own Chris Yogerst weighed in on Greg Gutfeld’s criticism of Hollywood — specifically Greg’s criticism of “G.I. Joe,†Stallone’s new Rambo film and “Inglourious Basterds†— for choosing politically correct villains over the real ones we face today. Chris is correct that turning Nazis into Jihadists is not something a filmmaker like Quentin Tarantino would do. If he has any, Tarantino’s politics have remained hidden in his work. Up on that screen the only thing he advocates for is overlooked 70’s B-movies and audacious entertainment. However, that doesn’t make the director’s decision to use Nazis any less politically correct or Hollywood’s moral cowardice in this area any more defensible.
Nolte challenges the idea that Hollywood is more concerned with money than ideology:
Like the mainstream media, Hollywood’s cry of being money-driven is a lie to cover an increasingly obvious Leftist political agenda. If Hollywood really is all about making money by “appealing to the largest audience,†why no follow up to one of the most profitable films of all time, “The Passion of the Christ?†Why the three-year run of A-listers starring in box-office embarrassments with the most politically correct villain of them all: Americans in the Middle East? Define these films any way you want, I define them as loss-leaders to put Democrats in office.
Why no follow up to “Passion of the Christ”? Perhaps because Mel Gibson — who paid for the movie himself — wanted to make “Apocalypto” instead? Maybe because he’s more interested in the sadomasochistic carnage of the crucifixion than the intellectual theology of the book of Acts? If Gibson had wanted to make a follow up to “The Passion” he certainly would have. It’s not like he was blocked by leftist, secular Hollywood. He could have filmed and distributed the picture himself.
Nolte concludes:
For my money, mainstream Hollywood has chosen sides, and not ours. And that choice has nothing to do wanting to “appeal to the broadest audience possible.â€
It’s not the economy stupid, it’s the agenda.
So what is Hollywood’s true color? Green or red? Do they care more about making money or pushing a leftist agenda? I feel in this there’s a very obvious point that’s being overlooked. And it can be summed up in one single question: what percentage of mainstream Hollywood films push a leftist agenda?
We can single out and rebut leftist Hollywood films all we want but I submit that the fact of the matter is that if you go to see a movie any given week chances are you’re going to arrive before a film that has very little political content. And in making this observation don’t think I’m ignoring the fact that when you do get political content it’s likely to be leftist.
I’ve been reviewing a movie every week for WTHR, Indianapolis’ NBC affiliate since the summer of 2007. So let’s just start with the 35 or so films that I’ve reviewed this year. Which ones have some political content and where does it fall? How might we look at the year’s films ideologically?
All-Out Leftist Pictures:
-
Frost/Nixon
-
Milk
-
Duplicity
- I somehow managed to avoid GI Joe but it sounds like it’d fall here.
Slight Leftist nods here and there, but not particularly political films:
Conservative in Theme:
Political but not blatantly ideological one way or the other, or taking shots at both sides:
Every other of the 20 or so films that I reviewed was pretty apolitical. One really needs to stretch to find politics in Up or The Hangover or the racist atrocity Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
When considered in this fashion the conclusion is clear: Hollywood might make a fair amount of leftist propaganda but for the most part it’s more concerned with making money.
So let’s continue calling out the totalitarian leftism of Hollywood’s most ideological productions, but let’s not depict the Left as more powerful than it actually is. At it’s core Hollywood is actually in love with capitalism, it’s just too terrified to acknowledge or even understand it.
Right on David !
“And in making this observation don’t think I’m ignoring the fact that when you do get political content it’s likely to be leftist.”
That’s what I took as the point of Nolte’s piece, David – not that Hollywood churns out a PREPONDERANCE of leftist agitprop. I don’t think Nolte or any objective observer would disagree that the majority of Hollywood films are apolitical. The issue here – and I don’t think I’m overstating the case – is that films with conservative political messages generally must have the backing of a major star and/or private funding to get made. Without these things, no major studio is going to bankroll a film with an overtly conservative message, DESPITE the fact that these types of films are proven money-makers with a wide and enthusiastic audience.
There is an analogue here in the so-called “mainstream” news media. While one can certainly argue that the majority of the broadcast networks’ programming is apolitical, As Bernie Goldberg has repeatedly pointed out, their NEWS broadcasts continue to lose viewers at an astonishing rate. Similarly, major city newspapers such as The New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution are watching their subscriber base plummet. In the case of the AJC, the paper has been losing money and subscribers for many years, and is only being kept afloat by continued cash infusions from its parent – Cox Enterprises.
The larger issue here is that leftists don’t simply love other leftists, they hate – and I do mean HATE – conservatism and all that it stands for. Accordingly, they will gladly lose money rather than knowingly lend credence to our arguments.
You make a great case here David. And with your knowledge and expertise in the area – it’s hard to argue against you.
I’m with Mark. I also gotta object to the characterization of the Passion of the Christ. The “theology” of the book of Acts is DEPENDENT on the theology of the crucifixion and ressurrection. The point was to just once show what it really was. The same reason for the last 15 minutes of the Stoning of Shorya M.
The ultimate example is changing the villains in Tom Clancy’s The Sum of All Fears from Islamic terrorists to quasi-fascist Russian mobsters or something. It was TOO timely? That would be like having a movie in 1943 about a group of American soldiers in the South Pacific fighting a war against the Zulu. Vince Flynn kept having studios want to buy his book rights, but leave out all that Islamic terrorist stuff.
What seems to be overlooked here is the overseas market. It is my understanding that Hollywood has an eye on the overseas market when they make a movie. If so, then they can have their cake and eat it too.
I can’t speak for Nolte, but irt The Passion Of The Christ, I believe he was pointing out that Hollywood (not Gibson) hasn’t bothered to make a film like The Passion, which is a proven moneymaker.
It’s not like Hollywood producers don’t try to repeat successes, as all the sequels and remakes demonstrate. They will certainly use ideas that have worked in the past, so why haven’t we seen a blockbuster of Acts, or Elijah, or Gideon to name just a few that would likely be big moneymakers if done right?
Sure, everyone in Hollywood wants to make money, so why all the anti-troop/anti-American movies that were doomed from the start since 9/11?
Why the reticence or refusal (in general) to back movies churchgoers would flock to see?
Where’s today’s Ten Commandments and Ben Hur movies?
No, most producers are leftists, and they would rather lose money than make conservitive themed films that show our troops as the heroes they are, or that follow Biblical themes. I don’t think they intend to lose money, but they sure have a blindspot to what moviegoers want when 13+ anti-American/anti-Iraq war/anti-military movies go bust.
Either that, or they just don’t care about the loss and just wanna make a “statement” to pad their lefty street cred.
Just my 2 cents, and I don’t disagree with every point you made.
If we separate morality from politics, which I don’t, then your major premise has some weight, as does the rebuttal of Mark Koenig, who made a very good argument against that premise.
I could be wrong, but I believe that morality is expressed in politics, and I believe the morality represented in movies today is the morality of the Left, generally.
Were you to accept this, would your assessment change?
David Horowitz on The Passion.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readBlog.aspx?BLOGID=184
To dismiss this as a snuff film is to dismiss the millions of Christians who were moved by it– including Christian intellectuals– as those who would enjoy a snuff film. It is part of a thousand years old argument than dismisses Christianity as a “bloody religion” so you have lots of company here.
I actually agree with you about manipulative youth pastors. (see my post about prophecy seminars) but a lot of those are manipulations of Christian kids making more decisions, etc. The crucifixion is an act of LOVE, so divorcing emotion and making it all about intellect is futile. Separating the emotional, the spiritual and the intellectual from a conversion is also futile unless you have access to God’s microscope. I would submit that the basis for how one discerns the difference is itself– emotional. You are dealing with emotional issues, legitimate guilt, a spiritual craving, etc that have an EMOTIONAL element. Nor is a spiritual experience solely intellectual, even C.S. Lewis and Chesterton are more than intellectual exercises…
It strikes me that your reaction to The Passion is emotional, at least in a large part. Frankly after some of the hysterical reviews, I was expecting more of a wallow, and less of the theology Gibson explicitly covered, so my reaction was somewhat different than yours, just on that level, no doubt.
“I can’t speak for Nolte, but irt The Passion Of The Christ, I believe he was pointing out that Hollywood (not Gibson) hasn’t bothered to make a film like The Passion, which is a proven moneymaker.”
This is an excellent point.
See my essay here about the problem inherent in bringing “morality” into politics:
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/08/30/newsreal-sunday-the-six-moral-arguments-against-socialized-medicine/
In philosophy Politics is an offshoot of Ethics. You are quite right one can’t separate morality from politics.
I have a great deal of affection for Christianity and for Jesus but very little for Mel Gibson’s snuff film — both what it has to say spiritually and how it’s filmed. It’s difficult for me to resist taking a shot at it when the opportunity presents itself.
See my review of the new Transformers movie where I compared it to “The Passion”: http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=10610474
I agree with so much of what you say in that essay, but I’m not sure if you mean to apply it exactly to this debate about Hollywood’s Leftness or Rightness.
Is there really a morally neutral position in Politics, or movies?
My point is merely that an “anything goes” morality, which is not neutral, is a position which is generally held by the Left. And, that this is the view that is being promoted in much of what comes from Hollywood.
You seem to dismiss this Left/Right issue, favoring instead the revenue motivation to what Hollywood produces.
Making Money and Promoting Left ideology are not mutually exclusive. The preponderance of Left leaning movies, versus those Right leaning movies, ignoring for the moment those you think promote neither, is sufficient evidence for many to conclude that Hollywood is a significant part of the Left’s vanguard.
The problem is that “morality” is contingent upon one’s belief system (BS.) Leftists can say that the moral thing to do in the health care debate is institute universal healthcare. And conservatives can say that it’s immoral to restrict freedom, increase taxes, and drive us further into debt.
“Morality” is just a term that is ultimately so vague as to be meaningless in political debates as Left and Right have different definitions of what constitutes “right” and “wrong.” And therefore because it’s vague and ineffective I choose to generally not use it in political debate.
I don’t dismiss the Right/Left issue in Hollywood. Hollywood is biased against conservatives and favors the Left. That’s F***ing obvious. Where Nolte and I perhaps disagree is that he presents the problem as bigger than it is. As I demonstrated with my piece most of what Hollywood puts out is apolitical. And it has to be that way. Otherwise they won’t be able to waste money on their leftist “Lions for Lambs” type propaganda pictures.
I’m not dismissing the very real emotions of people moved by the film. I have nothing but love and respect for people of faith.
We can get into a debate about “The Passion” if you really want to. A big part of my opposition to it is that it fits into a Christian tradition of emotionally manipulating people into a religious tradition. I was a really passionate evangelical Christian for 5 years. And one thing that I reflected on when leaving the literalist form of the faith for the more mystical faith I have now was realizing this: the Church and youth ministers in particular often emotionally manipulate people into becoming Christians. I witnessed it time and time again. The church produces an EMOTIONAL experience and then pawns it off as a SPIRITUAL experience and justification for accepting a specific theological vision. “The Passion” does the same thing. I find this to be very immoral and not at all Christ-like.
David, I’m not sure if your use of the “F***ing” adjective, is meant to incite, or if you’re attempting to make a comment about moral word choices, or if it’s just proof of how vocabularic you really are.
I thought we were having a fairly good discourse, but perhaps I was mistaken.
My apologies Brad, no intention was meant to offend.
My censored profanity was meant to point out how obvious the point “the Left dominates Hollywood” is. I hope thoughtful discussion can continue.
Part of my frustration with “The Passion” certainly comes from my own emotional experiences with Christianity but I have additional intellectual criticisms of the film also which we can get into if you want to.