I've decided to release the film guide. It's called "The Conservative Guide To Films" and it contains a ton of information that will absolutely surprise you, as well as some hopefully insightful discussions of liberal and conservative films. You can buy it at Amazon here: LINK! (Paperback to come.) Enjoy!
"The Conservative Guide To Films" will help you understand what makes a film conservative or liberal. It will help you understand how the two ideologies present themselves and how to spot them. It will debunk a great many liberal boogeymen and it exposes Hollywood liberal hypocrisies. This is a book for anyone with an interest in films, culture, and politics.
Chapter 1: Why Political Messages In Films Matter
Chapter 2: Defining Conservatism & Liberalism
Chapter 3: How To Spot A Film's Ideology
Chapter 4: Conservative Myths: It's Not As Political As You Think
***
Hollywood defines modern American culture, and culture defines "normal." It is through our culture that we pass our values and our beliefs from one generation to the next. By shaping our culture, Hollywood influences the way people see the world, how they solve their problems and to whom they look for solutions. It tells people how they should live, how they should act, and what they should believe. It is the parent so many parents are not, and unless conservatives want Hollywood raising a generation of reflexive liberals with no sense of personal responsibility, conservatives need to depoliticize the film industry to re-establish a cultural balance. That's where this book comes in."The Conservative Guide To Films" will help you understand what makes a film conservative or liberal. It will help you understand how the two ideologies present themselves and how to spot them. It will debunk a great many liberal boogeymen and it exposes Hollywood liberal hypocrisies. This is a book for anyone with an interest in films, culture, and politics.
Chapter 1: Why Political Messages In Films Matter
Chapter 2: Defining Conservatism & Liberalism
Chapter 3: How To Spot A Film's Ideology
Chapter 4: Conservative Myths: It's Not As Political As You Think
Is The Evil Corporate Villain Really Anti-Capitalist?Chapter 5: Debunking Liberal Boogeymen
Are Missing Parents Anti-Marriage/Anti-Family?
Why Are There No Islamic Terrorists?
Is Gun Violence Anti-Gun?
Is Anti-War Always Anti-Military or Unpatriotic?
The Bloodthirsty MilitaryChapter 6: Discussing Liberal Films
The Evil Businessman
The Republican Lobbyist
The Unreality of Guns
The European/Christian/Military Terrorist
Fascist Capitalists
Japanese Internment
Domestic Violence Demographics
The Southern Death Penalty
In Time (2011)Chapter 7: A Note On Liberal Sucker Punches
John Q (2002)
Norma Rae (1979)
The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
The China Syndrome (1979)
Erin Brockovich (2000)
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
Battle for Terra (2007)
Avatar (2009)
The Abyss (1989)
The Golden Compass (2007)
Do The Right Thing (1989)
Thelma & Louise (1991)
The Green Mile (1999)
12 Angry Men (1957)
Paul (2011)Chapter 8: A Note On Backfiring Messages
The Invention of Lying (2009)
Machete (2010)
The Men Who Stare At Goats (2009)
Happy Feet (2006) & Happy Feet Two (2011)
The Other Guys (2010)
Source Code (2011) & Flightplan (2005)
Punisher: War Zone (2008)
The Guns of Navarone (1961)Chapter 9: Discussing Conservative Films
Wall Street (1987)
Brazil (1985)Chapter 10: Compare And Contrast: Conservative vs. Liberal Films
WALL-E (2008)
Rollerball (1975)
The Incredibles (2004)
Gladiator (2000)
Dirty Harry (1971) & Magnum Force (1973)
Blade Runner (1982)
Drumline (2002)
The Blind Side (2009)
Battle: Los Angeles (2011)
Smokey And The Bandit (1977)
Adventures In Babysitting (1987)
Ghostbusters (1984)
Harry Potter (1997-2011)
Dirty Harry (1971) vs. The Star Chamber (1983)Chapter 11: Hollywood's Liberal Hypocrisy
High Noon (1952) vs. Outland (1981)
Platoon (1986) vs. We Were Soldiers (2002)
Apocalypse Now (1979) vs. Apocalypse Now (Redux) (1979/2001)
Star Trek (1966-1969) vs. Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994)
Anti-Gun Hollywood Promotes Gun ViolenceChapter 12: What Do We Do Now?
Feminist Hollywood Is Sexist
Hollywood Environmentalism Isn't So Green
Hollywood Racism
Political Correctness Goes Awry
20 comments:
YAY!
Cool. I'll buy it today.
I don't see depoliticization happening though. Art is an intensely personal thing (yes, focus groups and spreadsheets come into play when a lot of money is involved, but even then, the people involved matter a heck of a lot) and a lot of creative people have strong opinions about politics.
I think the best thing conservatives can do is make entertaining art informed by their values (which is different than making sermons).
When you talk about "de-politicizing" the industry, you're talking about two different things: the films and the artists. The former might be possible and the end result would be an even mix of liberal and conservative films (with a wide swath of apolitical films in the middle that people will read into anyway!).
The latter, at least for right now, is impossible. BUT after a generation or two, when the dead wood has rotted away (i.e.: openly-political folks like Redford, Fonda, etc.), you might get a new generation of libertarian-friendly (or otherwise non-political) artists. But it's not just actors and filmmakers, it's agents and lawyers and execs, etc.
Re: Anthony's comment about sermons, we need more movies like Ghostbusters and less... whatever the f--- this is. :-)
Anthony, I hope you enjoy it!
Depoliticization would be the ultimate goal and could be achieved if enough people started voting with their wallets. But a more likely result would be an increase in conservative and apolitical films. That would be good enough.
From what I've read Kirk Cameron is a good person. He has adopted kids and done a lot of work to help Christian charities. However, he is very far on the fringe end of the spectrum and, given the number of Christian films he does where he reads Bible verses to the camera, I'm guessing subtlety is not his strong suit.
Before I buy it, will it include "Gone With The Wind" anywhere? If it doesn't then, it can't be a "real" guide...;-) Okay, I need to expand my horizons. I will buy it now.
Scott, The problem right now is that leftists demand that their ideas be included. They are very active about it. On the other hand, conservatives tell their kids to avoid the industry, many either completely avoid the industry or they think there's nothing they can do.
Kit and Scott, Cameron seems like a really nice guy. I don't know about him as an actor, but he sounds pretty decent as a human being.
Bev, LOL! Sadly, I did not include Gone With The Wind in this book.
Scott,
Kirk Cameron is by all accounts a fine family man. He was also in the original and infamously bad Left Behind movies.
Andrew you are a marvel of blogging excellence. Thought I'd do my 6 month check in and mention this:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/26/Pew-Survey-1-3-of-Mexicans-Want-to-Move-to-America-60-Disapprove-of-Pe-a-Nieto-s-Economy
Just sayin.
I never got the sense that Punisher War Zone was a liberal film. I just thought it was a craptastic action movie with terrible lighting, boring characters and horrendously bad fight scenes, but I confess I am bad at picking up on the politics of films if they don't hit me over the head with them.
Anthony, Punisher War Zone wasn't a liberal film, per se. It was a
sucker punch film, meaning it was presented as an apolitical film, but it contained a nasty unexpected liberal political statement about Bush and DOD recruiting.
I was glad to see that it was finally up when I saw the post earlier today! I just finished it up a few minutes ago and reviewed it as well. You definitely did some nice analysis, Andrew, and I'm hoping that it'll eventually spark some good discussion on the subject.
- Daniel
Daniel, Thanks! And thanks for the review! I'm glad you liked it. :D
I hope it's useful for anyone who wants a guideline for how to analyze films from a political perspective, or just for anyone who wants a little more insight into Hollywood. I think a lot of the research I included is particularly fascinating as it shows just how unreal (and hypocritical) Hollywood really is. And I hope the insights into how see films are helpful. There is definitely a lot of material in the book and a lot of thinking went into it. This was definitely not written off the cuff!
Just finished. It was a very good read (I'll post a review in the next few days) and I agree with your broad definitions of what constitutes liberal and conservative in films. I especially loved the takedown of The Star Chamber.
To nitpick a bit, I disagree with you reading of the Star Trek TNG episode: The Survivors. The revelation that one of two survivors was a remorseful but immortal and omnipotent being (who had wiped out 50 billion sentients in an angry moment) didn't really leave Picard a lot of options.
By way of contrast, Kirk, who found a remorseful, powerless guy who could be apprehended and handed over without worrying about him vaporizing billions.
Also, I think you looked past the gentle giant trope in The Other Side (the movie has the family teaching the gentle giant how to play football and getting him to overcome his gentleness by telling him he needed to be aggressive in order to protect the QB).
In real life Oher didn't need a little boy or a woman to teach him how to play football or give him motivation to play :) .
http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/blindside.php
Did Michael Oher really have to learn to play football when he first joined the high school team?
No. This was grossly exaggerated in the movie. Michael did not have to learn how to play football, and Leigh Anne never walked onto the practice field to inspire Michael by telling him to protect his team as if he was protecting their family. The film's suggestion that he needed to be taught how to play football upset the real Michael Oher, "That part right there, it really got me because it was never like that. I've always known how to play the game of football. I've always had a passion for the game. You know, it's Hollywood, so I mean that's what they do, but at the end of the day it's still a good story."
Was he really a timid player who had to be toughened up?
No. "I've always had that fire and passion in me on the field," says Michael. "You can't put aggression into a person. It's impossible. Either you have that toughness and aggression or you don't." -20/20
Did the Tuohy's son S.J. really help teach Michael about football?
No. As the real Michael Oher stated above, he already knew how to play football. When Michael Oher was taken in by the Tuohy family, the Tuohy's son S.J. (Sean Jr.) was 8-years-old at the time (NYTimes.com). Actor Jay Head, who portrays S.J. in the movie, had just turned 11-years-old when filming began, although onscreen he looks to be a few years younger than he is and more in line with the true story. The real S.J. was not nearly as small either. He was by no means the pipsqueak that we see onscreen. Michael and S.J. did play sports together recreationally, but S.J. didn't have to teach him anything.
Anthony, Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I think it's packed with a lot of good information.
I really liked the comparison of Dirty Harry and The Star Chamber. I enjoy both movies immensely, but The Star Chamber truly is a bait and switch on the anti-vigilante argument. It's a very well done bait and switch, but it is a bait and switch.
In terms of the nitpicking, it's hard to include everything when you write a book like this or it loses focus and becomes too long. I was aware that they did downplay/misrepresent his ability to play football, but I saw that as a minor point compared to how the critics reacted and compared to the overall positiveness of the film.
I admit I never picked up on the bait and switch of Star Chamber, though I did think it was interesting that they made the innocent men guilty of a different felony (which kind of softened the ending IMHO).
I thought the Blind Side's gentle giant with little sense of self preservation but a powerful love of others was very reminiscent of the guy Michael Clarke Duncan played in the Green Mile.
Of course, liberal critics' issue with the movie was that it portrayed conservative Christian in a positive light and featured a black teen who was saved through the efforts of conservative white Christians.
Frankly, I think its deeply immoral to be against interracial adoption (kids need loving homes) and its pathetic to oppose a film based on reality (as you pointed out in your book, Erin Brokovitch took a lot more liberties with the source material) which presents people you don't like in a good light.
Anthony, On The Star Chamber, I didn't think about it specifically for years, but I always knew there was something "not right" about their presentation. Then one day it hit me that they are presenting the rules of the Chamber as something very specific and careful -- only cases where guilt is all but 100% established, but then his case is something completely different with only suspicion of guilt being present. I still enjoy the movie a great deal, but I don't see the argument as very honest.
On The Blind Side, I actually think he's closer to the "white man's burden" trope than the "magic negro" trope because he needs the white family to teach him (what the white family learns is incidental). Is that racist? Yes. But I give it some slack because it is based on a true story and because he's largely shown as being in control of his own destiny, i.e. he's not truly helpless. But in any event, the reaction of the critics was WAY over the top, especially since they never raised the same complaint with other films that did the same thing and because their complaints were largely about the portrayal "failing" to show the family as racist rather than being about him being presented in a racist way by the filmmakers.
Agree about it being pathetic to oppose a film based on reality.
As for being opposed to interracial adoption, I agree completely. I think it's completely immoral to claim that kids should go without loving homes rather than placing them with people of the "wrong" race.
Post a Comment