The Oscars are tonight and I thought it might be a good time to post some predictions. I haven’t seen any of the films nominated in any of the major categories. It is hard to locate a potential baby sitter who is competent to handle an autistic child, is willing to do so, and who is free on a weekend night. We will see some of the movies once they have been out on DVD for a while.
Now, you might think that not having seen any of the nominated films would be a problem when making Oscar predictions. Those are not the type of predictions I have in mind.
Prediction #1
Some blogger will write that Republicans and conservatives have no voice in Hollywood. That post will not mention Fred Thompson, Clint Eastwood, Robert Duvall, Fred Gandy, Sonny Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Shirley Temple Black, India Allen, Bo Derek, Robert Conrad, Tom Selleck, Ben Stein, Ron Silver, Mickey Rooney, Emily Proctor, Charlton Heston, Bob Gale, Kurt Russell, Rick Shroder, Rip Torn, James Belushi, Scott Baio, Pat Boone, Ernest Borgnine, Kelsey Grammer, Heather Locklear, or Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson, or many, many others.
Prediction # 2
Some blogger will write that Hollywood is out of touch with the values of real Americans. That post will fail to explain why millions of real, red state Americans continue, year after year, to plunk down their hard earned cash in order to have their values insulted for two hours. It will also not explain why market forces do not result in people making millions of dollars by making movies that do share the values of real Americans.
Prediction #3
Some blogger will write that Hollywood types should just shut up about politics because they do not know anything about it. That blogger will not apply the same standard to right wing bloggers who write stupid stuff about biology without knowing anything about the subject.
Prediction # 4
Some blogger will write that Hollywood types should just shut up about politics and policy because they do not know anything about it. That post will fail to explain why the GOP keeps nominating folks like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson, Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono, and Fred Gandy for high office.
Prediction # 5
Some blogger will write that Hollywood types should just shut up about politics and policy because they do not know anything about it. That post will not explain why the GOP run Congress seeks testimony from the likes of Bo Derek or Ben Stein.
Prediction #6
I do not know what will happen tonight but whatever it is, you can be sure that right wingers will say that it proves that although they control the White House, both Houses of Congress, much of the Judiciary, much of the business world, large segments of the media, and (they believe) the hearts and minds of most Americans, they are really just an oppressed minority.
Posted by Dwight Meredith at February 27, 2005 04:02 PM | TrackBackDon't forget Reagan
Posted by: Ben H at February 27, 2005 08:39 PMMayor of Carmel, CA, is a "high office"?
[as someone who grew up in part in upper carmel valley, imo, yes. ymmv. ebw]
Posted by: Grumpy at February 27, 2005 09:03 PMBen Stein was in Washington long before he was in Hollywood. That he has some appeal outside the Beltway is a testimony to his self-effacing, boring wonkishness. Truly, we're all better off with him doing commercials for eyedrops than writing Nixon speeches with Buchanan or whatever the hell he was up to.
Posted by: jon at February 27, 2005 09:59 PMJim Belushi?
I'd have never guessed.
BTW, I'm pretty sure that Clint Eastwood & Kurt Russell would recoil at the "conservative" label....they're libertarians with a capital "L", meaning they despise conservatives. I've seen Russell go off in an interview with someone who tried to describe him as a conservative Republican. Yeouch.
BTW, Dwight, you up for an e-mail question pertaining to autism? I've had an update on my 5 year old.
Posted by: RW at February 27, 2005 11:28 PMI knew there was a reason I never liked Heather Locklear.
Posted by: Travis at Rain Storm at February 28, 2005 12:10 AMEmily Proctor is truly a Republican, or did she just play one on West Wing?
Posted by: The Dad at February 28, 2005 01:56 AMFrom Powerline:
To me the Oscars represent another example of the left's march through our institutions. The left has captured nearly all of the organizations and phenomena that meant something to me when I was growing up -- the New York Times, CBS News, the NAACP, the ACLU, the professoriate, Hollywood, etc. etc. But it's a meaningless triumph because these institutions have lost their authority precisely by virtue of their leftward tilt. To illustrate, a Zogby poll shows that 39 percent of Democrats, but only 13 percent of Republicans, watch the Oscars.I would say that this comes awfully damn close to a winner.
[Comment cross posted at kevin's joint]
Posted by: def at February 28, 2005 10:37 AMNot really on topic, but there's a market reason for at least a cultural-left bias in film. The people I've know who watch 1-5 movies every week are normally youngish and single (or at least childless). A big category of movies are classified as date movies, and singles are more likely to go to these.
By contrast large families might go to 2-4 movies a year together, so fewer family movies are made. Parents have less disposable income than singles, and its also more expensive for them to go to movies since they also have to buy tickets for their parasitical, jobless kids too.
I am in no way supporting the conservative goons when I say this. If there are big differences of opinion within a society, it is pretty much inevitable that these differing opinions will not be evenly distributed, but that there will be concentrations.
What the conservatives are really angry about is that anyone, anywhere, is allowed to disagree with them. The more total their domination becomes, the more fiercely they will attack. They're attacking the influential centers of resistance first (making full use of fake populist "elite liberals" demagogery), but once these are subjugated, they'll start attacking anyone who remains in resistance -- Quakers, Native Americans, union members, etc., etc.
Posted by: John Emerson at February 28, 2005 11:09 AMJohn,
You're point falls apart when considering TV. Families sit in front of the tube, no babysitters required, no extra cost to buy the parasites tickets, etc.
So, there must be a killing to be made for right wing TV shows? Nahhh, they'd be boring as hell!
Posted by: Adam at February 28, 2005 11:28 AMActually, right wing shows are making a killing. What do you think survivor is, but an indoctrination for conservative idealogy. Cooperation only exists as a convenience, the goal is to destroy, betray, backstab, lie, steal and otherwise do whatever it takes to be numero uno. Your actual skills and merit have no meaning, it is only your ability to network and politik and organize to pick off the less well connected.
A good survivor show would have groups trying to build something from nothing, to show the power of cooperation and skill.
Posted by: tommypain at February 28, 2005 12:08 PMNot really wanting to argue here, just putting in my two cents: A lof of us "conservatives" simply don't protest to the extent of boycotting. I know Dennis Franz, Jimmy Smits, Kim Delaney, Steven Bochco and most of the cast are/were diehard Dems but I really don't care...I love NYPD Blue. They're not "Hollywood" & I don't agree with their political views, but I sure love their acting and their entertainment and their politics don't affect me a bit. Same goes for Dustin Hoffman, Deniro, Robin Williams, etc. I really don't care how "liberal" or "left" they are. If the film is good, I'll pay to watch.
Simple as that.
And lefties paid to watch Arnold and Willis.
If I want political commentary, I'll go to the sources (and I won't pay). Of course, there's a line I (and others) won't cross. I won't watch some satanist movie or pay for Farenheit 9/11 while others wouldn't watch Dennis Miller's show since he suddenly became "unfunny" after he supported Bush. But, that line's a long way away.
I think that's where the disconnect may be.....saying that "Hollywood doesn't share the values" doesn't mean that middle America is disgusted with "Meet the Fockers", it's that they may not care to have Barbra & Dustin pontificating on how terrible conservatives are from the podium (which, thankfully, they did not last night......although Hoffman looked pretty drunk).
I don't care what Clint Eastwood's politics are (although they're similar to mine), I'll gladly pay to watch the next "Mystic River" or "Million Dollar Baby". He's good at what he does. So are most of the lefty actors. And righty ones.
There's a difference in disagreeing with one's politics and not liking the person, or their work. Shoot, if John Kerry can sing like Luther Vandross, I'll gladly buy the CD.
Posted by: RW at February 28, 2005 12:43 PMYeah and don't forget Seventh Heaven, Tommypain.
Besides, I think us left-wingers would embrace well done family values style movies if they didn't sacrifice their artistic integrity and were intelligently written.
I'm liberal as hell and last year I really enjoyed Second Hand Lions, The Incredibles, Around the World in 80 Days, Shrek 2 (does that count?) and...I dunno, The Blue Collar Comedy Tour? Throw in some of those Spy Kids movies from previous years and anything by Hayao Miyazaki or Pixar, and you have a pretty good collection of imtelligent, family-friendly stuff that is totally cool for us liberals.
The problem with conservatives is that if there is anything at all in the movie they find offensive then the entire movie becomes inappropriate. That's a REALLY hard standard for Hollywood to reach (and still make a story with any sense of conflict, humor or poignancy) and so conservatives wind up feeling underrepresented.
Cody, I don't think it's solely the property of the right. I remember when activists were shouting out the ending of "Basic Instinct" to people buying tickets because they didn't like the fact that the killer was a bisexual, and they weren't right wingers.
I remember (all the way to last year) when a lot of people thought Mel Gibson's movie was inappropriate because of the violence, the number of Jews in the crowds, the fact that he didn't let some interest groups help rewrite the script in order not to offend (mull over that one for a while), and they weren't right wingers.
Sheesh, all CAIR, NOW, GLAAD, etc., does is protest, same as some of the righty groups.
Anyone actually think that Blazing Saddles could be made today?
On Prediction 1: Nice long list there, but only about 4 of those actors have viable careers. Come on -- Scott Baio? Mickey Rooney? Has he made anything except life insurance commercials in the past 20 years? (And some aren't actors at all.)
Prediction 2: Michael Medved wrote an entire book on this topic. Consider that people who think of themselves as artists don't always aim for sheer popularity; otherwise, we'd see more movies like The Passion.
Predictions 3 through 5: OK, you got me. Some unknown blogger somewhere is inconsistent.
Prediction 6: right wingers will say that it proves that although they control the White House, both Houses of Congress, much of the Judiciary, much of the business world, large segments of the media, and (they believe) the hearts and minds of most Americans, they are really just an oppressed minority.
What do you mean? Take a conservative who really believes in limited government. Does he see anyone in government carrying out his views? Not hardly. If he thinks of himself as a minority, it's because he is.
Or take a conservative to whom the most important issue is protecting innocent human life. Does she see any successes in that regard over the past 30 years? Not many. Are there Oscar-nominated Hollywood movies lionizing pro-life activists? Nope. Does she see her viewpoint given serious attention in the mainstream media? Not often. In what sense does she "control" anything, let alone the entire government?
Posted by: Functional at March 1, 2005 01:14 AM