Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Devil and Miss Sloane
It looks like Hollywood has given up on movies such as Lions for Lambs and Redacted that preach about the evil Iraq War and switched to movies that preach about the evil National Rifle Association.
Anti-Iraq war movies such as Lions for Lambs and Redacted bombed at the box office, as did similar films like Syriana and In The Valley of Elah. Those movies had Tom Cruise, Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, Leonardo Di Caprio, Tommy Lee Jones, and George Clooney in starring roles, and now Hollywood thinks they’re going to move the needle on the cultural dial with an anti-gun movie starring Jessica Chastain?
Good luck with that.
When even the Washington Post notices that your movie is preachy and talks down to half its potential audience, maybe it’s time to set aside the self-righteous, sanctimonious neo-puritanism in favor of making movies that are about telling good stories. Preaching should come from the pulpit, not from the movie screen.
Published in Culture
Only when studio heads begin to lose money will that happen. Time to have a RICO case against the barriers to entry in the film business.
Preaching is not a form of debate. The intended audience of preaching is those already convinced, and its purpose is to inspire the faithful to act on their beliefs. Its purpose is to invigorate.
I have no objection to preaching in films or other fiction. I object to misinformation, but it’s hard to get excited about the habitually misinformed continuing to indulge in fantasy.
We movie lovers always wish there was more quality output open to our own tastes. In eagerness to see something new, our disappointment over niche entertainment for other audiences can feel like abandonment.
The thing is, they lost a gazillion dollars on anti Iraq War movies that showed Americans as bad guys, then all of a sudden “Hurt Locker” came along which as sorta neutral on the subject, and BAM all of a sudden there’s money to be made in Iraq War movies.
Mel Gibson made The Passion and made a gazillion dollars, so the studios thought it’d be a good idea to do a “Biblical” movie that shows Noah as an environmental activist, and it loses money hand over fist.
Some people learn from their mistakes faster than others.
They make up their money on these kind of movies with Comic Book movies that rake it in both domestically and overseas. So they aren’t really losing money by making this schlock. People would have to stop going to see the fun movie, or the production company would have to only be making political propaganda, and they are smart enough not to do that.
Well, I think it has as much to do with an inability to tell a story. You don’t want some character to stand up in the middle of Hamlet and explain why the prince can’t make up his mind.
In most dramas, you start with a problem and then watch the characters work it out. But when you’re dealing with a political story, the dispute often is about what the problem is in the first place. To recall Hitchcock, how can you set up a conflict when the characters disagree on what the MacGuffin is?
I wouldn’t worry much about the movie having an impact. Jessica Chastain is such a lousy actress that people will avoid the movie like they would avoid a plague infested chimpanzee. Plus the chimp doesn’t charge $12.50 plus $300 for popcorn.
Interestingly, a progressive person I know has advocated revolution because of Trump. I asked her if she’d be joining the NRA–revolutionaries need fire power too.
She nearly choked at the thought. I call it severe irony deficiency.
Our local movie theater originally had large, excellent paintings of various movie stars. They were painted directly onto the wall… and by a local artist, I’m told. The theater was horribly outdated for years, had barely any customers, and it was often wondered how it managed to remain open.
At last, it was remodeled a few years ago. It’s amazing now with recliners like La-Z-Boys, assigned seating (which customers can select), new screens, and simple scanning of phones to verify tickets purchased online. But the signature paintings are gone.
In their place, a bar (yes, for alcohol) and the definition of MacGuffin in bold letters.
I also think there’s a little bit of misinterpretation about what kind of influence Hollywood has. Most of these movies were first imagined a few years ago, when everyone agreed that what changed the debate about gay marriage was shows like Ellen and Will & Grace. Popular culture was also a contributor to the Sexual Revolution, along with plenty of other social changes. Hollywood often acts as if they had the cultural leverage to dictate social issues.
I don’t doubt that popular culture has some important effect, but I don’t think it’s a one-to-one effect. That is, you can’t just put on a TV show with smiling, popular characters and expect that alone to change people’s politics or morality. Just because you make a movie doesn’t mean you’re going to move the needle.
What exactly is Hollywood’s influence on popular culture, and ultimately, on politics?
Oh great! Now I’m going to have to buy like a hundred Happy Meals for my lobbyist crazy kids.
Movies like this probably give a sense of catharsis to leftist producers and audiences. In that way, they would be rewarding. They simplify the issues and the enemy, making them easy targets to destroy via drama, and they reinforce audience values and feeling of rightness.
Several West Wing episodes featured caricatures of prominent conservatives (i.e., Jerry Falwell, Dr. Laura) that would act inappropriately and then be put in their place by the “good guys.” Political movies like the one in the OP are the same thing on the big screen.
On a scale of 1-10, how much am I out of it if I’ve never heard of Jessica Chastain–one being completely and totally blissfully oblivious and 10 being just plain hopeless?
I have heard of Thomas Chastain if that helps.
This.
You note that “When even the Washington Post…” but didn’t mention the article was written by Sonny Bunch! (He tweeted out a link to that article yesterday.)
Ms. Chastain was the lead in Zero Dark Thirty if memory serves.
They need to recruit writers who live outside California and New York. The ‘creatives’ are also a unimind , so when they ask for a war movie, they get anti war.
A movie about the trials and travails of a heroic, self-sacrificing lobbyist; what a brilliant way to reach the hearts and minds of the heartland.
*spit take*
Missed that. She shot Bin Laden?
If they continue their trajectory, all they will have in Washington is lobbyists. Time to burnish the image.
I understand the next heroes will be pedophile lawyers who heroically defend pedophiles by blackmailing pedophile judges. It will be a Christmas movie.
It depends on what you mean by the “film business.” Film-making is easy, and not even all that expensive. Film distribution is what is difficult, but the barriers to entry in that business do not seem to be in any way illegal. Just like a television network, you can set up your own. But it is going to take a whole lot of time and a whole lot of money.
@Hoyacon
Nah, that was Chris Pratt. You know, the guy from Parks and Rec.
That’s comforting. One never knows how far they’ll go for diversity.
What’s hilarious about this is you know the studio green-lighted this movie before the results of the election changed so much about the culture wars. You can imagine those execs at some point in the last 30 days realizing they still had to release this film at a time when the public is hyper-aware to this kind of blatant partisanship from Hollywood.
It makes me smile to know the financial hit they will take.
They can KMA the rest of my life.
Jessica Chastain has nothing on this chick:
I dunno, I smell a bait-and-switch from that trailer, like it’s the anti-gun lobbyist that will be revealed as a crapulent human being.
Indeed, if Hollywood was merely following the zeitgeist rather than attempting to shape it, this sort of movie would make way more money.
These movies aren’t about shaping the culture. They’re about pandering to Academy voters.
I noticed the earlier trailers did let on what they were actually fighting for. I assumed it would be a leftist theme, but they have to know the numbers are against them on this. Of all the left/right positions this is the one with the biggest advantage to the good guys.
I predict a money losing movie, but an Oscar winning Best Picture.
The biggest obstacle is this: conservatives would have to get up off their rear ends. That’s the only barrier left. Not likely to happen, but who knows?
I thought she was pretty good in “Zero Dark 30” but the Hollywood crowd were horrified by it.
Hollywood makes movies that show Americans as evil and sell them all over the world, which is how they recover their investment in these clunkers. The result is that we are hated in half the countries in the world.
Too bad we cannot make them pay a price for the negative propaganda.