I post to a UT sports site. The socio-political factions boil down simply into the conservatives and the liberals. The neocons (or repulitards as we like to call them) always take the position that Hollywood is polluting the country, blah, blah. Mind you, they have a very selective way of ignoring what Exxon, McDonald's and other corporate behemoths do, but the general theory is that Hollywood is a liberal cabal designed to push a liberal agenda. I got tired of hearing this pablum and responded with the following:I work in Hollywood. You might want to even call me some level of insider. Started my career at one of the big five talent agencies (it was the big three when I started) sequed to film production/aquisitions/development. I now own a production/management company.
The thing I love to hear is people talk about the liberal agenda in Hollywood. That there is a cabal of entertainers that wring their hands and devise an agenda of counter-cultural ideas. The reality is we give the audience what they want. This is not called show friends, show agenda, show values... it's show business. Emphasis on the business. We are here to make money. Period. For every Brokeback Mountain there are 20 Starsky and Hutches. For every dysfunctional family drama there are 20 Lethal Weapons. We play to your blood lust, sexual titillation... whatever turns you on enough to sacrifice a dollar.
The reality is that if we gave you what you say you wanted, we would go out of business. If any of you guys watch The Simpsons, there is an episode where Marge Simpson gets the Itchy and Scratchy show to change their content. Instead of hacking each other to pieces they instead serve each other tea. Know what happens? Ratings plummet. It's not any different in the real world. The essence of dramatic tension is conflict. Without it, storytelling falls flat. And without the dramatic tension there is nothing to see. So if you think people would run, not walk, to the theater to see a family get along, you need to stop huffing paint.
On top of that, the major studios/distributors are owned by huge multi-national corporations. Universal by GE. Fox by News Corp. Paramount by Viacom. Warners by Time Warner. Columbia by Sony. You think any of those corporate parents give a s**t about anything other than the bottom line? Then I have a bridge I want to sell you. The average studio feature has a negative cost of maybe 50-60 million (I am guestimating that figure). Throw in marketing and you add another 20 million at least. That is 70 to 80 million dollars per picture. That is not chump change. You think movies that don't play to the red states get a green light? Hells no they don't as they like to say. They stay in the strike zone of sequels, books, pre-existing properties or chock full of the holy trinity of america (sex, violence and American hegemony). Businesses do not gamble this money. It's not good business. The reality is that for every person that talks about films that need to be more "family-oriented", they are saying that as they throw their money down for Basic Instinct. As an aside, it is not a coinkydink that the porn business is a six billion (that's right billion with a "b") business. They give the audience what it wants beyond what hollywood is able to deliver. And trust me, there are not that many DVD's in California.
In Hollywood, we are business people, and pretty good ones at that, and we give the audince what it wants. If it wanted Jill and Jeremy go to Bible Camp, you would get seven sequels for it. But you don't. Because the audience doesn't want it. And that's the facts. By the way, here is the top box office for 2005 and I don't see a gay cowboy anywhere. But I do see a lot of dead bodies.
1 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
2 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
3 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
4 War of the Worlds
5 King Kong
6 Wedding Crashers
7 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
8 Batman Begins
9 Madagascar
10 Mr. & Mrs. Smith
The response to this was the typical obfuscation and subject changing. The next assault (after failing to address any of my points) was to talk about how the Liz Taylor's of the world being on the public stage are corrosive to american society. The unstated thesis is that these qualities are the purview of liberals (or the Loony Left as we are called). My response follows:The serial marriage/anti-social behaviour has less to do with the political inclinations of people in this business than the personality types it attracts. This business is filled with thrill seekers, risk takers, insane artists and attention seekers. You might want to call it "colorful" personalities. Do liberals predominate in Hollywood? Yes. I would be lying if I said they didn't. But the rightwingers out here, and there are rightwingers out here, exhibit the same social pathologies as the lefties. Trust me, the same people voting for Bush are not missing the Party Train when it leaves the station. And with that said, you would be surprised at the number of stable married people here in Hollywood. Most of my friends are married (I am thirty four for the sake of disclosure). Observationally I have noticed that on average people in this biz get married later, not fresh out of high school, and have a tendency to be highly educated. My old roommate (one of the producers of the movie "The Ring") went to Duke and has a law degree from UT. That is more typical than atypical.
Now with all that said, let's talk about actors. They are a breed unto themselves. Generally emotional. Very fly by the seat of their pants. Constantly inhabiting different personas. This is not a person you should look to for long term stability. Now throw in the personality traits from above and it's a miracle most actors are married three weeks much less thirty years. There is a certain amount of narcissism that propels you infront of a bunch of people. That type of narcissism however, also makes you a lousy mate. And that is irrespective of profession. But to complicate matters even further throw in fame. I have seen the taste of fame make people do stupid s**t. And if anyone tells me they would be different, I call bulls**t on that. The people who always talk about how level they are, are the first to push their grandmother in front of the bus to get the spotlight.
Ok, so where is this all going... politics. What happens in DC is not so different than what happens here. It's is just a more message controlled business. But all the stuff that Hollywood gets accused of happens in DC, left and right, because it attracts the same personality types. When I hear politicians rail against this business, all I can think is "The lady doth protest too much."
This response led to a more microscopic examination of Liz Taylor. What Liz Taylor has to do with globo-political intrigue I am not sure. The typical attack pattern of the cons is to engage in an ad hominum attack. In this case it is about Liz Taylor's inadequecies as a role model. My response:Is she an Icon of liberal Hollywood? You can make the case that she is an entertainment icon, but for my leftie friends I guarantee (sp?) that I have yet to walk into an office or room or whatever and see the liberal tiger beat pin-ups of her on anyone's wall.
Here is the issue, why are Hollywood celebs held to a different standard than any public figure? I can make the argument that sports stars, some politicians, pundits are more in the public eye than most celebs. If I went to rural Texas I am willing to bet that more people know and listen to Rush Limbaugh than Alec Baldwin. And Limbaugh is a opiate addict (oxycontin is not that far of an extension from heroin). So what does that say?
Again, I love the idea of this liberal Hollywood agenda. You know why we know so much about Liz? Because she was a strong actress/box office draw for many more years than the average movie star. (Wanna do a fun exercise, count the number of stars whose careers span more than 15 years as driving box office) Being in the public eye for so long causes people to want to feel intimate to her. Hence they want to know about her life. And the more we know about her private life, they realize that she is a little nutty. And tempetuous. And we love it. So want to want to hear about it. And subsequently she sells gossip rags. And that aint a bad thing for the magazines. And for some there is the argument that any publicity is good publicity. And you know who buys those gossip rags? The people b****ing about the dissolution of marraige. Now with that said, I have never witnessed a divorce that was caused by Liz Taylor nor have I heard of an addict who started gulping Oxycontin becuase Rush did it.
So what's my point? The great American prediliction is to look for simple solutions to complex problems. Blaming Hollywood celebs for the weakening of the social fabric is as useful as, to borrow a phrase, dancing about the architecture. There are many reasons for this degridation of our social/family cohesion. Liz Taylor isn't one of them.
This leads to dissertation on the reach and span of Hollywood into the general cultural fabric. Now the Cons are trying to have it both ways. Hollywood is not that influental but they are when I don't agree with them. Whoever them may be:Again, we get back to the basic equation. You keep saying that Hollywood has a significant impact on American culture. I say Hollywood is a significant reflection of American culture. I am not saying, that we have no impact. I am just saying that the impact is mostly overstated. Again, if the market won't tolerate it, we won't give it what it doesn't want.
Where did this racism argument angle come in? I have never touched that subject as it doesn't have anything to do with my general thesis. It's like suddenly an alien saucer landed in this wheatfield. Racism in Hollywood is another subject and one, that much like this one, is not as obvious as it seems.
And Scot, does the consumer have any power? If you don't want to watch it on TV... Turn it off. If you don't want to see it in a theater... don't go. If you don't want to have your kids be raised by the TV... don't let it. Take your kids to the park. Tell them why what they see is wrong and monitor their viewing habits. You had kids, raise them.
These are all very emotional responses, but frankly there is not a lot of substance to them. It's not like their is a 'bloid fairy putting issues of US Magazine and People Magazine under people's pillows. Or a large bunny dressed in a pink cowboy hat and a**less chaps forcing people to watch Brokeback Mountain at gunpoint. These are all consumer choices. You vote with your dollar. We see it everyday. This is a consumer driven business.
Back to the impact argument. Again, I am not saying Hollywood has no impact. But it is way back in the order of pivotal influences. Show me a racist and I will show you racist parents. Show me a wife-beater and I will show you someone who grew up in that environment. Show me a criminal and I will show you someone who learned that behaviour from their immediate surroundings, not watching episodes of CSI.
And finally, I am trying to avoid marketing terms. Marketing terms are generally charged and elicit a desired behaviour or emotional response. In an earlier post I used the word Tempetuous.
(I was accused of clever wordplay by one of the respondants) You called it a marketing term and inserted Vainglorious Bitch. Which one of these terms is charged?
Again the response is a dogged persistance in maintaining Hollywood is responsible for weakening American marraige. My response:Hollywood led the way with the disposable marriage attitude that is now mainstream. To make this type of statement there seems to be a few suppositions:
1) America was a pristine landscape of spousal fidelity until Hollywood came along and showed us how to cheat on our spouses and make leaving them acceptable.
2) America is a victim to the depraved forward thinking leftist agenda aimed at under-mining the cultural mores that pre-existed Hollywood.
3) Hollywood is the predominate moral leader in the USA.
There is such an amazing tennent of paternalism underneath all of this coupled with an emotionally based appeal. Like America is being preyed upon by the lowlifes in Hollywood. Are Americans self-determinant or not? This position strains credibility to say the least. Following this logic, did husbands and wives sleep in separate beds until Hollywood decided to put spouses in the same bed and the rest of America followed suit? When June Cleaver wore high heels when cleaning the house, were all American women wearing high heels? Again, Hollywood reflects American values. It doesn't set the table.
Divorce is acceptable in the mainstream for many reasons, none of them having to do with Hollywood. People in Hollywood get divorced. It gets documented in the press. But that doesn't force Americans to run, run like the wind, to their lawyers to get this new-fangled divorce:
Int - Lawyer's Office - Day
An auto-mechanic, clothes stained with car grease, runs breathlessly into his Lawyer's office. The lawyer sits at his desk and looks up. The mechanic runs up and leans over him.
Man
(breathless)
I just saw Movietone news and that Liz Taylor just got this thing called deee... umm... duhhh... Veee...Lawyer
That would be a divorce... pronounced "d-vors". And it's all the rage in Hollywood. In fact, let me hand you this pamplet put out by the Screen Actors Guild and the American Civil Liberties Union. There is even a testimonial on the back by Ronald Reagan. You should get one for yourself. I think you're gonna like it.I am not trying to be a smart-a** (ok, maybe a little bit) but the reason divorce became acceptable has everything to do with the rising social changes coming out of World War 2. Women hit the work place. Husbands dissappeared overseas. Then you have birth control. And so on and so forth. I mean the list is multitudinous (sp?), but Hollywood is not the reason. To blame Hollywood as being the instigating factor in the decay of marraige is intellectually lazy because the reasons are many and complex.
Anywho, you get the gist. I am all for trying to do better. But the way to do better is to get to the real issues and the real reasons. Following the path of least resistance or making unsubstantiated leaps of logic is not the way to get to the roots of any situation. They say the path to hell is paved with good intentions. And I maintain that its road signs are written in the blood of straw men.